SCOTUS Judge Gorusch confirmed: many think he'll rule on 2nd Amendment cases in the near future

[Aim1]

From the article:

The new justice at the Supreme Court, Neil M. Gorsuch, is likely to have an immediate impact, weighing in as early as next week on whether to expand the breadth of the Second Amendment, considering how voting rights should be protected and perhaps casting the deciding vote in a major separation of church and state case.

There are many other journalists who think Gorsuch will be ruling on deciding to hear 2nd Amendment cases and ruling on them in the near future. I'm not going to post them all here. He'll be sworn in on Monday. He's got 2 coming up for consideration almost immediately and one is one of the most important IMHO, carry outside the home. This is great. Not to get ahead of ourselves, but I think the next big gun case pertains to so-called assault weapons and high capacity magazines and I hope that one will be picked up relatively soon in the next few years.

If President Trump gets another SCOTUS pick or 2, he could change the makeup for the next 40 years or so. And with the Nuclear Option passed, he could pick really almost anyone he wanted. Apparently the Republicans can reverse the Nuclear Option also. If they thought Trump may lose re-election I would definitely reverse it if I was them.




https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...a5314b56a08_story.html?utm_term=.3f24f92faee6

Immediate impact: Gorsuch could redefine Supreme Court starting next week


By Robert Barnes April 7 at 12:24 PM

Two controversial gun issues await at Gorsuch’s first private conference with his new colleagues next Thursday, when the court meets to decide whether to accept a long list of cases for the term that begins next fall.

The most important is a petition from gun rights activists asking the court to find for the first time that the Second Amendment right to keep a gun for self-defense extends to carrying firearms outside the home.

A second case involves whether those convicted of certain crimes can indefinitely be barred from possessing firearms.

 

[Jeff H]

Apparently the Republicans can reverse the Nuclear Option also. If they thought Trump may lose re-election I would definitely reverse it if I was them.

To be fair, whichever party is in charge of the Senate can reverse the Nuclear option. The fact that this has never been done before is the significant part. Now that it has been done once, it can be done with relative impunity later by a different party.

Hey look, it is only fair. The Republicans did it in 2017....

 

[Aim1]

To be fair, whichever party is in charge of the Senate can reverse the Nuclear option. The fact that this has never been done before is the significant part. Now that it has been done once, it can be done with relative impunity later by a different party.

Hey look, it is only fair. The Republicans did it in 2017....

Yep, whichever party has the majority to do so. When the Democrats did it for nominations below SCOTUS in 2013, what were they thinking, that the pendulum wouldn't swing back the other way and the Republicans would never be the majority again?

 

[Zendude]

Is Gorsuch solidly pro 2A? I haven't heard much about his position on the issue or whether he has ruled in any cases that are 2A related.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

Is Gorsuch solidly pro 2A? I haven't heard much about his position on the issue or whether he has ruled in any cases that are 2A related.

I don't know about 'solidly pro 2A' but he pissed off a lot of CA Senators with his answers about the 2A during his questioning session.

That alone makes me smile.

 

[.308 Norma]

Is Gorsuch solidly pro 2A? I haven't heard much about his position on the issue or whether he has ruled in any cases that are 2A related.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...l-gorsuchs-nomination-to-the-us-supreme-court

 

[bassjam]

Is Gorsuch solidly pro 2A? I haven't heard much about his position on the issue or whether he has ruled in any cases that are 2A related.

He's an originalist, meaning he tries to take personal opinion out of the decision and look at it strictly as the original writers of the Constitution meant. That indicates he'll be pro 2nd Amendment.

 

[George Dickel]

If it was the other way around the Dems would have done the same thing with a Hillary nominee. They already proved that they would do it when the used the nuclear option for lower judge appointments. Finally the stupid Republicans decided to do unto as done unto.

 

[Kingcreek]

About time the republicans started acting like the majority party. The dems are the true obstructionists. I wish they would refer to it as the "Reid Option" instead of the nuclear option.

 

[ilbob]

if a case comes up, it is likely he will be involved. just like every other case.

 

[CraigC]

IMHO, his confirmation is a HUGE victory for those who truly value and appreciate the Constitution, in its entirety!

 

[Aim1]

if a case comes up, it is likely he will be involved. just like every other case.

If I'm correct what's good is that he hasn't ruled on many 2nd amendment cases, so he wouldn't have to potentially recuse himself from one that comes up there he previously ruled on in a lower court.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

About time the republicans started acting like the majority party. The dems are the true obstructionists. I wish they would refer to it as the "Reid Option" instead of the nuclear option.

Exactly ! It was Reid's idea but that seems to be forgotten.
Anyway we shouldn't get too excited here.
The Supreme court is going back to what it was: 4 conservative 4 liberal 1 swing.
If president Trump gets one more pick then we may have something to celebrate.

 

[CraigC]

Exactly ! It was Reid's idea but that seems to be forgotten.
Anyway we shouldn't get too excited here.
The Supreme court is going back to what it was: 4 conservative 4 liberal 1 swing.
If president Trump gets one more pick then we may have something to celebrate.

Yeah but it real easily could've swung the wrong way.

 

[Aim1]

Yeah but it real easily could've swung the wrong way.

This. Merrick Garland was so anti-gun it would have been horrible. Like having Feinstein as a SCOTUS judge.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Kennedy is the swing vote. He's like 200 years old. Ginsberg is a old enough to be his mom. I think the next appointments are going to be very interesting.

 

[Aim1]

Kennedy is the swing vote. He's like 200 years old. Ginsberg is a old enough to be his mom. I think the next appointments are going to be very interesting.

If they don't retire before the next election it could get very interesting.

 

[Mike OTDP]

Gorsuch won't matter...yet. It's the replacement for Kennedy or Ginsburg that will shift the balance of power.

 

[ontarget]

Yep, whichever party has the majority to do so. When the Democrats did it for nominations below SCOTUS in 2013, what were they thinking, that the pendulum wouldn't swing back the other way and the Republicans would never be the majority again?

Yes that's exactly what they were telling themselves.

 

[Aim1]

Gorsuch won't matter...yet. It's the replacement for Kennedy or Ginsburg that will shift the balance of power.

And now that the Nuclear Option has been used Trump can push through a hardcore conservative if he wanted.

Once again what were the Democrats thinking filibustering Gorsuch who's so well qualified and a moderate.


Hopefully Trump can put another 2 pro-2nd amendment justices on the court now.

 

[armoredman]

Fingers crossed...but does anyone see the problem, that one man in the right/wrong place can determine our Constitutional core, fundamental rights for the conceivable future? SCOTUS wasn't meant to have that much power originally. We have to hope for a single person to retire, one person, at the right time, to ensure our rights for...until two other people retire/die and an anti rights Admin is in power? How many SCOTUS decisions were overturned by later courts, and for something this contentious, it would be on the table.
I am hopeful for the future, but not for my son's future.

 

[Aim1]

Fingers crossed...but does anyone see the problem, that one man in the right/wrong place can determine our Constitutional core, fundamental rights for the conceivable future? SCOTUS wasn't meant to have that much power originally. We have to hope for a single person to retire, one person, at the right time, to ensure our rights for...until two other people retire/die and an anti rights Admin is in power? How many SCOTUS decisions were overturned by later courts, and for something this contentious, it would be on the table.
I am hopeful for the future, but not for my son's future.

It is crazy. However, someone has to make the final decision and rather a group of 9 then a singular person like a king.


Also, the Democrats have used up the whole "stolen seat" - Merrick Garland excuse now. Their only avenue of argument against Trumps next nominee if he gets one has to be based on that persons qualifications.

 

[basicblur]

Been a few months, but I listened to a lawyer with SAF saying they had numerous cases lined up and ready to go, but they would probably wait for Trump's second SCOTUS nominee to be appointed.

They're afraid if they go forward with the cases, the court may vote not to hear them, which means the lower court rulings stand.

SAF figures after the next 2nd Amendment friendly judge is appointed, they will vote to hear the cases they have ready.

 

[v35]

but does anyone see the problem, that one man in the right/wrong place can determine our Constitutional core, fundamental rights for the conceivable future?

That's been a concern of mine for the past several years, at least. A number of SCOTUS cases came down to one vote. Heller, NFIB, and the ACA come to mind but I'm sure I'm forgetting others.

 

[Aim1]

Been a few months, but I listened to a lawyer with SAF saying they had numerous cases lined up and ready to go, but they would probably wait for Trump's second SCOTUS nominee to be appointed.

They're afraid if they go forward with the cases, the court may vote not to hear them, which means the lower court rulings stand.

SAF figures after the next 2nd Amendment friendly judge is appointed, they will vote to hear the cases they have ready.

I'm not sure I'd wait for that. Trump may not get another choice. I'd think he may get 1 or 2 more, but you can't count on that.