Shish glad this last election was all about the Supreme Court

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yo Mama

Yo Mama

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
3,230
With the Supreme Court turning down another gun case I have to wonder what was the benefit of focusing on the Supreme Court during this last election cycle? This is two cases now that were of utmost importance including magazine limits as well as waiting day periods. Being that these are two essential parts of exercising your 2nd Amendment rights I seem to wonder what was all the hoopla about keeping the Supreme Court? Maybe I'm just being negative right now but I would kind of like these cases heard before it's no longer in our favor. As it is we would have expected a 5-4 vote on all this.
 
Supreme Court appointments are a lottery. More often than not, once someone gets on the Court, he doesn't always vote as expected. Remember that the candidates are experienced lawyers and judges, and their loyalty to the institutional law is greater than their loyalty to any ideology. That's why Roberts voted to uphold Obamacare. He was thinking about the future of the Supreme Court as an institution.
 
Yo Mama wrote:
...I have to wonder what was the benefit of focusing on the Supreme Court during this last election cycle?
Click to expand...

Well, politicians spend lots of money on surveys and consultants to tell them what the voters are interested in. They then stake out a position with respect to those issues. They don't necessarily have any intent to make decisions consistent with that position, they just it to "buy votes" with "cheap words".

The last election was not about who would sit on the Supreme Court. It was about who would occupy the Oval Office. I could say if you believed Donald Trump when he said the election was about the Supreme Court (rather than whether he would beat Hillary) you were deceived. But that might be too strong a word for it. Candidates, Trump included, say what they need to say to get elected. Once in office, they may try to act in accord with what they said, but the essence of a representative government is compromise and so they find themselves having to modify or even abandon the things they said on the campaign trail.

If you listen to the interview Steve Bannon gave to the reporter in which he talked about having to abandon Trump's staunch right wing supporters, it will give you some understanding of the political calculus that was made and where you actually stand in relationship to the Trump administration's campaign promises.
 
I have a feeling they're turning down these cases because they don't know how it'll play out. There isn't a solid majority right now that seems to adhere the Constitution, and both sides know it.

While these cases would have been great to win, they'd be even worse to lose.
 
President Trump wasn't able to change the balance of the court with his pick and confirmation. If a left leaning jurist retires or is no longer able to serve then he can move the court to the right. If this happens can you imagine the gnashing of teeth we will hear from the left. That will be even more entertaining than anything the snowflakes did.

I also agree with bassjam about what might have happened if these cases were heard in front of the present court.
 
Middletown said:
President Trump wasn't able to change the balance of the court with his pick and confirmation. If a left leaning jurist retires or is no longer able to serve then he can move the court to the right. If this happens can you imagine the gnashing of teeth we will hear from the left. That will be even more entertaining than anything the snowflakes did.

I also agree with bassjam about what might have happened if these cases were heard in front of the present court.
Click to expand...


Ditto.

Justice Kennedy is generally considered to be the swing vote. There are reports that he is seriously considering retiring this year. If so then President Trump can move the Court more to the Right.

Chief Justice Roberts is not to be trusted. He showed he is more of a politician than a true Conservative with his decision with Obamacare.
 
If the justices had accepted one or two firearm-related cases or their silence was limited to a single term or two, it would be irresponsible to speculate. But an eight-year silence on the Second Amendment amid a number of major cases suggests something deeper is at work. Perhaps it’s the media's anti-gun hysteria over mass shootings since McDonald. Or perhaps they’re waiting for more consensus to emerge among the federal circuit courts before revisiting the questions. Or perhaps they’re just waiting for the right one.
 
The only really reliable pro-gun vote on the Supreme Court is Justice Thomas. (He's the only one that would have used the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment to incorporate the 2nd Amendment as against the states, in the McDonald case.) But there are rumblings on the left that he should be impeached, because of lying in his confirmation hearings. Anyway, he may be about ready to retire. It's said that he's tired of all this, and wants to go home and enjoy his pension.
 
AlexanderA said:
Supreme Court appointments are a lottery. More often than not, once someone gets on the Court, he doesn't always vote as expected. Remember that the candidates are experienced lawyers and judges, and their loyalty to the institutional law is greater than their loyalty to any ideology. That's why Roberts voted to uphold Obamacare. He was thinking about the future of the Supreme Court as an institution.
Click to expand...
I think the word "connected" is more fitting than "experienced"...
 
This wasn't as bad as people think it is at face value.

Basically the Supreme Court said that they wouldn't take the case because it had not made it through the lower courts (which is how it is normally done). In essence, they did not want to let this case cut in line ahead of other cases on the docket.

They will get another chance to hear it once it makes it through the lower courts.
 
Would anyone rather that the OTHER side had filled Scalia's seat? We are looking at two more likely (Ginsburg and Kennedy) and at least one more possible (Thomas) seats to fill in the forseeable future.

This is chess, not checkers. These things happen slowly.
 
Yo Mama said:
With the Supreme Court turning down another gun case I have to wonder what was the benefit of focusing on the Supreme Court during this last election cycle? This is two cases now that were of utmost importance including magazine limits as well as waiting day periods. ...
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court will hear fewer than one percent of the cases in which certiorari is requested. And even though the Second Amendment is a priority with most of us, it's not necessarily one for everyone else. There are other things going on and other legal issues that need to be addressed.

And Trump is also appointing judges to District Courts and Circuit Courts.
 
Yeah, RBG is hanging on by mere threads, just so a conservative cannot be nominated. Had the election gone the other way, she would have retired and a reliable ultra-leftie named into her place.

Kennedy seems to be waffling on retiring. He's not had a major medical issues lately, but is no spring chicken.
 
George Dickel said:
Your worst nightmare of a extreme left wing supreme court judge would have been appointed under a Clinton presidency.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. Someone like this guy, and then there would have been 5 Justices with this type of reasoning.

Breyer claimed that that fear drove “many people” to urge a vote against the Constitution, believing ratification would only empower Congress to run roughshod over freedom. He then said he wanted to paraphrase James Madison, saying Madison stepped up and pledged to “put in the Constitution an amendment saying Congress can’t do that; it cannot call up and disband the state militias. Why? Because a well-armed militia is necessary for the security of a free state, i.e., a state militia, and therefore, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” He said it was his position that the Founders were talking about a collective right, “which is not the right of an individual to keep a gun next to his bed.”

Or her,

By insulting Trump, Ginsburg revealed her obvious preference for Hillary Clinton. While inappropriate, this is a fitting endorsement, as there is every indication that Ginsburg’s preferred candidate is on board with her plans to overturn Heller.

I'm under the opinion that the very first case to go in front of the Supreme Court Heller would have been overturned. We need 6 to 3 or better and we'll get that under a President Trump.
 
Crawdad1 said:
We need 6 to 3 or better and we'll get that under a President Trump.
Click to expand...

You can't count the votes on the Supreme Court the way you can count votes in Congress. Once seated, Supreme Court justices go on autopilot. These are lifetime appointments, and they are not beholden to anybody, including the president who appointed them. It's impossible to predict the outcome of future cases.
 
Why is it that leftist Supreme Court justices never seem to waiver from their ideology and expected views, but "right wing" or "conservative" justices as often as not go wobbly or liberal when nut cutting time comes along? (think Kennedy (GHW Bush appointee) & Roberts (GW Bush appointee) Wait a minute, maybe I just happened across a common link!
 
plodder said:
Why is it that leftist Supreme Court justices never seem to waiver from their ideology and expected views, but "right wing" or "conservative" justices as often as not go wobbly or liberal when nut cutting time comes along? (think Kennedy (GHW Bush appointee) & Roberts (GW Bush appointee) Wait a minute, maybe I just happened across a common link!
Click to expand...

Because GHW Bush and GW Bush believe in "the Constitution is a living breathing document that should change with the times" b.s.
 
Crawdad1 said:
I couldn't agree more. Someone like this guy, and then there would have been 5 Justices with this type of reasoning.

Or her,

By insulting Trump, Ginsburg revealed her obvious preference for Hillary Clinton. While inappropriate, this is a fitting endorsement, as there is every indication that Ginsburg’s preferred candidate is on board with her plans to overturn Heller.

I'm under the opinion that the very first case to go in front of the Supreme Court Heller would have been overturned. We need 6 to 3 or better and we'll get that under a President Trump.
Click to expand...

Ginsburg will not retire any circumstances as long as we have a Republican President. There are reports coming out about how frail she is becoming. It is being reported that she is falling asleep during oral arguments before the Court and only working a few hours a day. Her Law Clerks are researching, then deciding what her position is and writing it for her signature.

Ginsburg intends to die in Office. Even if she becomes disabled such as from a stroke the President will be unable to fill her seat.
 
OK, but that isn't my point. Do you see her opinion regarding the Second Amendment? How about another one like her?
Or how about this?
"What do you need this gun for?"
"I need it for self protection."
"That's not a good enough reason. Permit denied."

Trump's base will never desert him because they are NOT people who live by the code, 'What have you done for me lately?"
 
AlexanderA said:
You can't count the votes on the Supreme Court the way you can count votes in Congress. Once seated, Supreme Court justices go on autopilot. These are lifetime appointments, and they are not beholden to anybody, including the president who appointed them. It's impossible to predict the outcome of future cases.
Click to expand...
But we have a real good idea, and if Clinton was picking judges now I cringe at what a court decision on a gun case would be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top