steveTA84 Posted December 2, 2019 at 04:22 AM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 04:22 AM always an excuse to protest and spew their garbage. You can bet the press will be there to cover this crap as well. Wonder if theyre gonna threaten the justices like the dems did? https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-opinion-supreme-court-senate-democrats-20190904-v4pc6s2d4rewbnr7yx5s3id3hy-story.html In 2017, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., accused President Donald Trump of showing a disdain for an independent judiciary that doesnt always bend to his wishes after Trump criticized a federal judge who ruled against his administration. Senate Democrats, by contrast, have launched an unprecedented attempt to actually bend the Supreme Court to their wishes threatening to restructure the court if the justices do not rule as they see fit.The threat came over the Supreme Courts decision to hear a challenge to New York Citys restrictions on how gun owners who have residential permits can transport their guns. In a legal brief, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., argued that the case against New York was moot because it had rescinded the gun regulations in question. Fair enough. It is perfectly fine for the senators to make legal arguments in a legal brief to the court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted December 2, 2019 at 06:39 AM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 06:39 AM So, this would essentially be a conspiracy to apply pressure on the Judicial Branch of the Government to not make a ruling based on the interpretation of the law, the language of the Constitution, and precedent, but instead based solely on the political ideology and viewpoint of the people . The operative intent being a conspiracy to act in such a fashion. Hmm. How is that not illegal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted December 2, 2019 at 07:10 AM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 07:10 AM ... Hmm. How is that not illegal? They're not threatening the institution of the court or any of its members. If they intend for some of their members to attend the oral arguments (which is possible for members of the public) and protest in the courtroom, they'll get ejected very quickly. Things like cameras, cell phones, signs, banners, buckets of pig blood, etc., won't even be allowed in the room. The clothes on their backs, a pad of paper, and a pen are about the only things allowed for the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikew Posted December 2, 2019 at 12:11 PM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 12:11 PM MDA: We're not anti-gun, we just agree with NYC that you should be forced to keep your gun in the your own home in NYC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveTA84 Posted December 2, 2019 at 01:14 PM Author Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 01:14 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveTA84 Posted December 2, 2019 at 02:01 PM Author Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 02:01 PM BTW, who wants to bet that Roberts screws us?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmagloo Posted December 2, 2019 at 02:16 PM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 02:16 PM Roberts voted with Heller and I don't think he's at risk here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicagoRonin70 Posted December 2, 2019 at 02:20 PM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 02:20 PM ...Hmm. How is that not illegal?They're not threatening the institution of the court or any of its members. If they intend for some of their members to attend the oral arguments (which is possible for members of the public) and protest in the courtroom, they'll get ejected very quickly. Things like cameras, cell phones, signs, banners, buckets of pig blood, etc., won't even be allowed in the room. The clothes on their backs, a pad of paper, and a pen are about the only things allowed for the public. I was referring to this, actually, but it would also apply if the MDA actually makes any threats against the court somehow: Senate Democrats, by contrast, have launched an unprecedented attempt to actually bend the Supreme Court to their wishes threatening to restructure the court if the justices do not rule as they see fit.The threat came over the Supreme Courts decision to hear a challenge to New York Citys restrictions on how gun owners who have residential permits can transport their guns. In a legal brief, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., argued that the case against New York was moot because it had rescinded the gun regulations in question. Fair enough. It is perfectly fine for the senators to make legal arguments in a legal brief to the court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted December 2, 2019 at 02:20 PM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 02:20 PM The Chicago Libune printed Bloomberg’s opinion piece today in the editorial section. It was basically “ vote for me as President and I’ll appoint anti- 2A judges and beat the evil NRA “ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveTA84 Posted December 2, 2019 at 02:32 PM Author Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 02:32 PM The Chicago Libune printed Bloomberg’s opinion piece today in the editorial section.It was basically “ vote for me as President and I’ll appoint anti- 2A judges and beat the evil NRA “ What many people fail to understand is that the NRA is just the big name to attack and what he really means is that he will appoint judges to turn 100+ million people into criminals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raw Power Posted December 2, 2019 at 02:55 PM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 02:55 PM The Chicago Libune printed Bloomberg’s opinion piece today in the editorial section.It was basically “ vote for me as President and I’ll appoint anti- 2A judges and beat the evil NRA “ What many people fail to understand is that the NRA is just the big name to attack and what he really means is that he will appoint judges to turn 100+ million people into criminals. Bloomberg thinks he can buy an election, because that's the sort of thing he's been doing all his life. I hope he wastes millions on his campaign, because that's less he can use to restrict people's rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveTA84 Posted December 2, 2019 at 03:02 PM Author Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 03:02 PM The Chicago Libune printed Bloombergs opinion piece today in the editorial section.It was basically vote for me as President and Ill appoint anti- 2A judges and beat the evil NRA What many people fail to understand is that the NRA is just the big name to attack and what he really means is that he will appoint judges to turn 100+ million people into criminals. Bloomberg thinks he can buy an election, because that's the sort of thing he's been doing all his life. I hope he wastes millions on his campaign, because that's less he can use to restrict people's rights.Im hoping billions. Best thing about this is that heck be using more of his money on himself vs giving to his gun control orgs. Then again, he has so much that Im not quite sure it hurts his bank account. Then again, just got this the other day..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raw Power Posted December 2, 2019 at 03:06 PM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 03:06 PM What many people fail to understand is that the NRA is just the big name to attack and what he really means is that he will appoint judges to turn 100+ million people into criminals. Bloomberg thinks he can buy an election, because that's the sort of thing he's been doing all his life. I hope he wastes millions on his campaign, because that's less he can use to restrict people's rights.Im hoping billions. Best thing about this is that heck be using more of his money on himself vs giving to his gun control orgs. Then again, he has so much that Im not quite sure it hurts his bank account. Then again, just got this the other day..... He's already had his influence. Few Democrats dare to run nationally on a pro-gun message directly because of him, for fear of being primaried. He's gotten what he wants, by paying for it, and using threats and intimidation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveTA84 Posted December 2, 2019 at 03:09 PM Author Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 03:09 PM What many people fail to understand is that the NRA is just the big name to attack and what he really means is that he will appoint judges to turn 100+ million people into criminals. Bloomberg thinks he can buy an election, because that's the sort of thing he's been doing all his life. I hope he wastes millions on his campaign, because that's less he can use to restrict people's rights.Im hoping billions. Best thing about this is that heck be using more of his money on himself vs giving to his gun control orgs. Then again, he has so much that Im not quite sure it hurts his bank account. Then again, just got this the other day..... He's already had his influence. Few Democrats dare to run nationally on a pro-gun message directly because of him, for fear of being primaried. He's gotten what he wants, by paying for it, and using threats and intimidation. True. It’s a shame too, as if Dems ran on a real pro-2A message (not “I support the 2nd, but.....) they’d be in a much better position. Bloomberg and Soros have poisoned the DNC to the point where they’re no better than the ones they claim to hate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingWalleye Posted December 2, 2019 at 06:09 PM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 06:09 PM I just saw a YouTube video of the lawyers who were representing the NRA and they said there were no protesters there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
45Badger Posted December 2, 2019 at 06:10 PM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 06:10 PM Not sure they need to be. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/02/supreme-court-shows-little-appetite-for-expanding-gun-rights.html To early to tell, but early signs are decidedly neutral. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SycamoreRuger Posted December 2, 2019 at 06:18 PM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 06:18 PM The Supreme Court will not be bullied, and they don’t get “dragged into” cases they don’t affirmatively choose to hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveTA84 Posted December 2, 2019 at 06:35 PM Author Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 06:35 PM Not sure they need to be. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/02/supreme-court-shows-little-appetite-for-expanding-gun-rights.html To early to tell, but early signs are decidedly neutral. Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkRoberts....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Q Public Posted December 2, 2019 at 09:45 PM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 09:45 PM Wack-a-Mole, pass all the crap and when SCOTUS decides to hear one they repeal and say, why should we rule on this when it no longer exists. Mean time they put 20 more laws in and repeat the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billzfx4 Posted December 2, 2019 at 09:57 PM Share Posted December 2, 2019 at 09:57 PM They're "pushing an extreme interpretation of the Constitution" ????? "Shall not be infringed" seems pretty straight forward to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borgranta Posted December 3, 2019 at 03:21 AM Share Posted December 3, 2019 at 03:21 AM always an excuse to protest and spew their garbage. You can bet the press will be there to cover this crap as well. Wonder if theyre gonna threaten the justices like the dems did? https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-opinion-supreme-court-senate-democrats-20190904-v4pc6s2d4rewbnr7yx5s3id3hy-story.html In 2017, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., accused President Donald Trump of showing a disdain for an independent judiciary that doesnt always bend to his wishes after Trump criticized a federal judge who ruled against his administration. Senate Democrats, by contrast, have launched an unprecedented attempt to actually bend the Supreme Court to their wishes threatening to restructure the court if the justices do not rule as they see fit.The threat came over the Supreme Courts decision to hear a challenge to New York Citys restrictions on how gun owners who have residential permits can transport their guns. In a legal brief, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., argued that the case against New York was moot because it had rescinded the gun regulations in question. Fair enough. It is perfectly fine for the senators to make legal arguments in a legal brief to the court. Intimidating a judge is illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveTA84 Posted December 3, 2019 at 04:08 AM Author Share Posted December 3, 2019 at 04:08 AM always an excuse to protest and spew their garbage.You can bet the press will be there to cover this crap as well. Wonder if theyre gonna threaten the justices like the dems did?https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/commentary/ct-opinion-supreme-court-senate-democrats-20190904-v4pc6s2d4rewbnr7yx5s3id3hy-story.html In 2017, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., accused President Donald Trump of showing a disdain for an independent judiciary that doesnt always bend to his wishes after Trump criticized a federal judge who ruled against his administration. Senate Democrats, by contrast, have launched an unprecedented attempt to actually bend the Supreme Court to their wishes threatening to restructure the court if the justices do not rule as they see fit.The threat came over the Supreme Courts decision to hear a challenge to New York Citys restrictions on how gun owners who have residential permits can transport their guns. In a legal brief, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., argued that the case against New York was moot because it had rescinded the gun regulations in question. Fair enough. It is perfectly fine for the senators to make legal arguments in a legal brief to the court. Intimidating a judge is illegal. Not if you’re a Democrat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveTA84 Posted December 3, 2019 at 02:15 PM Author Share Posted December 3, 2019 at 02:15 PM Good god are they stupid https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/12/02/nra-asked-anti-gunners-the-name-of-the-scotus-case-they-were-protesting-their-re-n2557367?amp=true&__twitter_impression=true https://mobile.twitter.com/NRA/status/1201605222239477766?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fd-9188203021271450022.ampproject.net%2F1911121900560%2Fframe.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmagloo Posted December 3, 2019 at 03:30 PM Share Posted December 3, 2019 at 03:30 PM I wonder how much they pay these stooges? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Posted December 3, 2019 at 03:57 PM Share Posted December 3, 2019 at 03:57 PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmagloo Posted December 3, 2019 at 04:03 PM Share Posted December 3, 2019 at 04:03 PM I'm kind of thinking it would be fun for a bunch of us to infiltrate, take the stipend, then pull a Clark Kent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RECarry Posted December 3, 2019 at 04:58 PM Share Posted December 3, 2019 at 04:58 PM Moms Demand Conformity to Authoritarian Ideologies. How is that good "for the children"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mab22 Posted December 4, 2019 at 02:59 AM Share Posted December 4, 2019 at 02:59 AM MDA: We're not anti-gun, we just agree with NYC that you should be forced to keep your gun in the your own home in NYC.If you purchase a gun outside the home or at a store, how would you get it home, if you can only transport it to a range and back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markthesignguy Posted December 4, 2019 at 03:14 AM Share Posted December 4, 2019 at 03:14 AM Bloomberg may be able to buy their bodies, perhaps he should spend a little more and buy them some brains as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raymond963 Posted December 4, 2019 at 11:47 AM Share Posted December 4, 2019 at 11:47 AM Bloomberg may be able to buy their bodies, perhaps he should spend a little more and buy them some brains as well. I'm sure he'd rather save the money and keep them just the way he wants them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.