Jump to content

RIP RBG

RoadyRunner

By RoadyRunner
in Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion

Recommended Posts

JTHunter Member

JTHunter

Posted
Posted

Nightmare scenario, senate flips, dems keep the house, election results are contested, Nancy become interim president and they slam through the most liberal anti-gun justice willing to take the job...

BITE YOUR TONGUE !! :pinch: :frantics:

Raw Power Member

Raw Power

Posted
Posted

The problem is that the Gorsuch delay is going to come back to bite McConnell in the behind. He stated pretty clearly that the people should have a chance to vote in the person choosing the next SCOTUS nominee. That's going to be thrown back at him with a lot of force and vigor now.

 

I think a divided government would essentially be a good thing... but I am very disappointed in SCOTUS for refusing to uphold our 2A rights this past year... they had ample opportunity.

JTHunter Member

JTHunter

Posted
Posted

Nightmare scenario, senate flips, dems keep the house, election results are contested, Nancy become interim president and they slam through the most liberal anti-gun justice willing to take the job...

 

McConnell has already thrown down the gauntlet and will go forward with confirmation hearings if Trump nominates a Justice.

 

How about this nightmare...

 

Biden wins

Senate flips

House stays the same

Trump gets his lame duck Justice appointed

 

Congress adds 2 or more seats to the court, probably 4 just for extra padding, and Biden appoints more SCOTUS Justices than Trump did.

 

If this happens ..We are done a as a country. Say BYE BYE

Then maybe American patriots should take a page from the Left's playbook, even to the point of "physical violence".

2A4Cook Member

2A4Cook

Posted
Posted

 

McConnell will hold the vote if Trump appoints

https://twitter.com/senatemajldr/status/1307121192516628480?s=20

The problem is that the "Turtle" is trying to have it both ways.

In 2016, before Trump won, McConnell tried to hold off an Obama appointee after Scalia's death, claiming it should be the purview of the incoming president. Now he's taking the opposite view.

 

Two issues with that: first, the Dems screamed and cried bloody murder; now, they have the nerve to say it should wait for the new president Second, there was a Rebublican Senate when Obama made the Garland appointment; there was no way he'd pass confirmation if it went to a vote. Seems to me BOTH are trying to have it both ways, but reality states that it's an R POTUS and an R Senate, and to not make an appointment would be a disservice to the country.

 

My opinion would probably be different if Dem-appointed judges didn't vote in lockstep and continuously wipe their rears with the Constitution in order to rationalize their left wing political (which should be "judicial") decisions. Last point: name me ONE D-appointed justice who flipped and became an originalist or strict constructionist. Just one. R;s appoint judges who they hope will fairly apply the constitution, law and precedent to the case. D's appoint people they know will make a left-leaning political decision, then scramble for sources to rationalize their political decision.

Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
Posted

Second, there was a Rebublican Senate when Obama made the Garland appointment; there was no way he'd pass if it went to a vote..

 

 

To me the refusal to take a vote was a non-consent by the Senate, the Constitution does not mandate that a vote be the only way advice and consent is given or not given to the nomination. This is another one of those cases were one side wants to ignore the simplicity of the actual written text of the Constitution and instead craft their own interpretation of the meaning of the text.

 

"and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint"

steveTA84 Member

steveTA84

Posted
Posted

The problem is that the Gorsuch delay is going to come back to bite McConnell in the behind. He stated pretty clearly that the people should have a chance to vote in the person choosing the next SCOTUS nominee. That's going to be thrown back at him with a lot of force and vigor now.

 

I think a divided government would essentially be a good thing... but I am very disappointed in SCOTUS for refusing to uphold our 2A rights this past year... they had ample opportunity.

Cant disagree with any of this (although Garland?)

 

Either way, ram it through. The dems wouldnt be so kind anyways if it were in their court (and better chance of a pro-2A judge in a Trump admin)

Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
Posted

Something to put out there, it's very, very likely at this point the election will be contested in some way, does either side want a Supreme Court that could deadlock and not render a decision on the outcome of a contested election?

bmyers Member

bmyers

Posted
Posted

I may not of agreed with all her decisions/viewpoints, yet she spent a life serving the Nation. A lady who lost her family at a young age, pioneered her way into an area at the time that was male dominant, she had many qualities that are to be admired.

 

RIP RBG

Raw Power Member

Raw Power

Posted
Posted

 

The problem is that the Gorsuch delay is going to come back to bite McConnell in the behind. He stated pretty clearly that the people should have a chance to vote in the person choosing the next SCOTUS nominee. That's going to be thrown back at him with a lot of force and vigor now.

 

I think a divided government would essentially be a good thing... but I am very disappointed in SCOTUS for refusing to uphold our 2A rights this past year... they had ample opportunity.

Cant disagree with any of this (although Garland?)

 

Either way, ram it through. The dems wouldnt be so kind anyways if it were in their court (and better chance of a pro-2A judge in a Trump admin)

 

Whoops, I had a Joe Biden moment!

soundguy Member

soundguy

Posted
Posted

Murkowski, romney, collins... is there a fourth? Hopefully not.

 

Appointed Senator Martha McSally (AZ) is in a "special election" on Nov 3.

If she loses, her Democratic opponent Mark Kelly could be sworn in before the end of November.

steveTA84 Member

steveTA84

Posted
Posted

 

Murkowski, romney, collins... is there a fourth? Hopefully not.

 

Appointed Senator Martha McSally (AZ) is in a "special election" on Nov 3.

If she loses, her Democratic opponent Mark Kelly could be sworn in before the end of November.

She’s already going to lose. And good god, that’s all we need. Giffords a-hole in the Senate

mab22 Member

mab22

Posted
Posted

 

The problem is that the Gorsuch delay is going to come back to bite McConnell in the behind. He stated pretty clearly that the people should have a chance to vote in the person choosing the next SCOTUS nominee. That's going to be thrown back at him with a lot of force and vigor now.

 

I think a divided government would essentially be a good thing... but I am very disappointed in SCOTUS for refusing to uphold our 2A rights this past year... they had ample opportunity.

Cant disagree with any of this (although Garland?)

 

Either way, ram it through. The dems wouldnt be so kind anyways if it were in their court (and better chance of a pro-2A judge in a Trump admin)

 

Good point they would not be that kind, there is no “good” answer as Hillary already said NOT to accept the results of the election. We can’t have a split Decision if Kamala looses and challenges the results. Then it must be rammed through.

springfield shooter Member

springfield shooter

Posted
Posted

Three Supreme Court Justices Were Confirmed In Less Than 45 Days, Including Ginsburg

 

https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/18/three-supreme-court-justices-were-confirmed-in-less-than-45-days-including-ginsburg/?fbclid=IwAR1xts-IUGGeOkoWHJUoptS5_1n4Q1EugxorGJRcxmPPHDygokwxtc30uoQ

 

 

Fill the seat. They would do it in a heartbeat.

 

Yes they would. And (as has been noted above) the Democrats have all but promised to litigate. It would be inexcusable to leave the Court set up for a potential 4-4 tie.

burningspear Member

burningspear

Posted
Posted

Well said.

I may not of agreed with all her decisions/viewpoints, yet she spent a life serving the Nation. A lady who lost her family at a young age, pioneered her way into an area at the time that was male dominant, she had many qualities that are to be admired.

 

RIP RBGI

richp Member

richp

Posted
Posted

A rational thought.

 

Given the coming election has a high probability of generating litigation that will wind up in the Supreme Court, there is a powerful argument for filling this vacancy so that a 4/4 split isn't possible.

 

Rich Phillips

dragos111 Member

dragos111

Posted
Posted

Someone probably destroyed the aging painting that was hanging in her attic.

 

Sorry, had to make a joke. Would not wish her health on anyone. It was probably tough for her to hang in there.

 

Now that she has passed it will be interesting to see what they do. Will they follow the practice of not nominating a justice in the last months of a presidential term? If they do not, the Left will be up in arms, perhaps quite literally.

 

My guess is that they really need to appoint a new justice now. This election will be a contested election. A split 4x4 Supreme Court will not be able to solve it. We need the court up to full strength.

 

The Democrats will complain that Obama was denied the Merrick Garland nomination. There are a couple differences here. Obama was at the end of his second term. He was, in truth, a lame duck president. Trump could actually be re-elected and could appoint whoever. Also, Obama did not have a majority in the Senate. These specific circumstances have not been test by precedence yet. They could make all the difference.

 

I bet they push forward with a nomination.

Flynn Member

Flynn

Posted
Posted

Three Supreme Court Justices Were Confirmed In Less Than 45 Days, Including Ginsburg

 

https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/18/three-supreme-court-justices-were-confirmed-in-less-than-45-days-including-ginsburg/?fbclid=IwAR1xts-IUGGeOkoWHJUoptS5_1n4Q1EugxorGJRcxmPPHDygokwxtc30uoQ

 

 

Fill the seat. They would do it in a heartbeat.

 

There is still 106 day until the new Congress is sworn in, so plenty of time even without a rush, it doesn't have to happen before the election.

jim123 Member

jim123

Posted
Posted

Nightmare scenario, senate flips, dems keep the house, election results are contested, Nancy become interim president and they slam through the most liberal anti-gun justice willing to take the job...

tenor.gif?itemid=13700763

Mr. Fife Member

Mr. Fife

Posted
Posted

Trump has always been about Making America Great Again. There was a time when Supreme Court nominations were approved unanimously without any theatrics. Contrast that to what happened to Justice Kavanaugh.

 

Trump is restoring this country to it's rightful place, so what Obama/Biden did or didn't do shouldn't be binding on Trump. Trump has been undoing as much of Obama's damage to this country as he can.

 

I'll trust whatever his decision is here, his track record on running the country has been good so far, IMHO. I understand there will be opinions different than mine though.

 

Stupid speelchick

 

.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...