Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 06-27-2018, 2:24 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 152
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal View Post
Senate Democrats are already demanding that selection of a replacement Justice be held in January to allow voters to weigh in on the midterm elections.
Socialists can go and pound sand.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06-27-2018, 2:26 PM
Iktomi's Avatar
Iktomi Iktomi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: In YOUR neighborhood. Scary, huh?
Posts: 172
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal View Post
Republicans don't really believe in the Gander/Goose sauce equivalency except when it's in their own interests.

Is this Republican Hypocrisy? Is there a single CalGunner that is concerned about Republican Hypocrisy?


In any case this certainly changes the climate for 2nd Amendment Rights. Could be very exciting to see what gun rights cases the SCOTUS picks up in the next few years.
I could give a rip about perceptions of hypocrisy in this case. This is politics, and elections have consequences. One side stands with the constitution, the other side does not. F!@K 'em. Lets get to work confirming a good Justice
__________________
Our chief weapon is surprise, fear and surprise; two chief weapons, fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency! Er, among our chief weapons are: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and near fanatical devotion to the Pope! ...Oh, damn ...Um, I'll come in again.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06-27-2018, 2:43 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,638
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
Of course not -- we don't have enough votes on SCOTUS to get a 2A case.
Maybe you don't understand -- the Justices themselves decide which cases they will hear. So if they don't like 2A cases, they can just not have any on their list....like it is now.

But once we get enough Justices who care about ALL our civil rights, especially the beleaguered 2A, they'll pull in 2A cases, and decide them favorably.
True, and I hope so -

A Justice can "like" a 2nd Amendment case because they prefer to expand or restrict the right, or markedly disagree and overturn a lower court decision in one direction or another. With Kennedy on the court it seems to me any new decision, for or against, was likely to be unremarkable. SCOTUS would neither overturn an AW ban nor allow a prohibition on all semi-rifles, they wouldn't curtail Congress's use of "prohibited persons" to deny the right or prohibit "may issue". A lukewarm rehash of "self defense in the home" would be the best we'd get from SCOTUS with Kennedy still sitting. The Justices know that so their collective approach is "why bother?".

It would appear that is about to change, I'd hope.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06-27-2018, 2:57 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,783
iTrader: 30 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal View Post
Senate Democrats are already demanding that selection of a replacement Justice be held in January to allow voters to weigh in on the midterm elections.

They insist that the Republican Senate set a precedent in 2016 by refusing to allow Obama to choose Scalia's replacement in the last year of his Presidency.

They have a point but I doubt that the present Senate leadership will give any credence to this argument. Republicans don't really believe in the Gander/Goose sauce equivalency except when it's in their own interests.

Is this Republican Hypocrisy? Is there a single CalGunner that is concerned about Republican Hypocrisy?


In any case this certainly changes the climate for 2nd Amendment Rights. Could be very exciting to see what gun rights cases the SCOTUS picks up in the next few years.

Will the CRPA and NRA-ILA pick up the pace of their anti-gun law court challenges? Will they need more money to drive several law suits at once?

Are there any cases in the pipeline that might be ready soon for SCOTUS review?
Would the democrats wait until after the midterm if they were in the GOP's position? Lol, hell no they wouldn't.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06-27-2018, 3:01 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,638
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal View Post

Is this Republican Hypocrisy? Is there a single CalGunner that is concerned about Republican Hypocrisy?

I take Senator McConnell's 2016 remark regarding "let the people decide" as applicable during a presidential election only, where there's a direct cause and effect. "The people" spoke in 2016 with respect to Supreme Court nominees. They understood that the President for the next 4 years gets to nominate and appoint.

A case can be made that since this is not a presidential election year the circumstances are different. The President alone nominates and subsequently appoints. It's an individual decision, not collective approval. And we should remember that the Democrats are defending 23 or the 33 seats up in the Senate. Further, we ought not equate a Democratic majority in the Senate to mean a vote would occur along party lines. A Democratic Party controlled Senate could appoint the very same nominee as one controlled by the Republicans.

We should also recall something our Democratic Party friends discussed in 2016 when President Obama was in office - a recess appointment. If Congress goes into recess President Trump can, albeit it temporarily, appoint a Supreme Court Justice:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is...urt-an-option/

"The Constitution not only assigns to the president the task of making nominations to the Supreme Court, setting off Senate review that may or may not result in approval, but it also gives the Chief Executive the opportunity to fill a vacancy on the Court temporarily, bypassing the Senate initially, if a nominee languishes in the Senate without final action."

So there's a fair amount of hypocrisy to go around. I think McConnell's is defensible but in the end, do I care? No. Anyone who thinks the Democrats wouldn't have done and then do exactly the same thing probably moves their lips when they read the newspaper.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06-27-2018, 3:08 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 12,638
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Would the democrats wait until after the midterm if they were in the GOP's position? Lol, hell no they wouldn't.
If the Democrats had the Senate now they darn sure wouldn't. They're defending 23 of the 33 seats being decided this fall and as obnoxious as the Republican Party has been it seems as though in the Senate they may even pick up a seat or two.

If McConnell wanted to be slick he could agree to hold off, call the Senate into recess and rely on Trump to appoint whomever he pleased with no "advise and consent". If the Rs held the Senate they'd rubber stamp. If they lost the Senate it doesn't necessarily mean that recess appointment would be reversed. The guy may be acceptable to the Democrats. Then again, they might overturn on principle.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06-27-2018, 3:13 PM
green grunt's Avatar
green grunt green grunt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Lodi
Posts: 814
iTrader: 22 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wireless View Post
Would the democrats wait until after the midterm if they were in the GOP's position? Lol, hell no they wouldn't.
no they would ram it thru and tell the R's to pound sand.....

Go "TRUMP"

PS: and get going on all the lower court appointees too.
__________________
Semper Fi.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06-27-2018, 3:14 PM
CaliforniaLiberal's Avatar
CaliforniaLiberal CaliforniaLiberal is offline
#1 Bull Goose Loony
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4,595
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
FIFY.

It's not specific to just Republicans.

Can't argue with this in any way.
__________________
Better Way to Search CalGuns - https://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=0...78:pzxbzjzh1zk
CA Bill Search - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...chClient.xhtml
C D Michel, Good Info CA Gun Law, New CA Legislation - http://www.calgunlaws.com
California Rifle and Pistol Association - http://crpa.org/membership/
Sacramento County Sheriff Concealed Carry Info - https://www.sacsheriff.com/Pages/Org.../SIIB/CCW.aspx
Second Amendment Foundation - http://www.saf.org
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06-27-2018, 3:21 PM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,136
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
It would appear that is about to change, I'd hope.
Hope and change? Was that intentional?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06-27-2018, 3:22 PM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,796
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Brett Kavanaugh looks like he is pretty good for us. He dissented an AWB in the past.
__________________
WTB: Chronograph
WTB: T Series Hi Power
WTB: Bisley Revolver (Uberti type)
WTB: Pietta 45lc conversion cylinder
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 06-27-2018, 3:25 PM
Mr.Cip's Avatar
Mr.Cip Mr.Cip is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Fremont CA
Posts: 551
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0cb56051ec177


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 06-27-2018, 3:27 PM
CaliforniaLiberal's Avatar
CaliforniaLiberal CaliforniaLiberal is offline
#1 Bull Goose Loony
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4,595
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfletcher View Post
I take Senator McConnell's 2016 remark regarding "let the people decide" as applicable during a presidential election only, where there's a direct cause and effect. "The people" spoke in 2016 with respect to Supreme Court nominees. They understood that the President for the next 4 years gets to nominate and appoint.

A case can be made that since this is not a presidential election year the circumstances are different. ....

Yes, that's right, only in Presidential election years divisible by 63. It's right there in the Constitution if you look carefully enough.
__________________
Better Way to Search CalGuns - https://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=0...78:pzxbzjzh1zk
CA Bill Search - http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/fa...chClient.xhtml
C D Michel, Good Info CA Gun Law, New CA Legislation - http://www.calgunlaws.com
California Rifle and Pistol Association - http://crpa.org/membership/
Sacramento County Sheriff Concealed Carry Info - https://www.sacsheriff.com/Pages/Org.../SIIB/CCW.aspx
Second Amendment Foundation - http://www.saf.org
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 06-27-2018, 3:33 PM
tankarian's Avatar
tankarian tankarian is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,076
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal View Post
Senate Democrats are already demanding that selection of a replacement Justice be held in January to allow voters to weigh in on the midterm elections.

They insist that the Republican Senate set a precedent in 2016 by refusing to allow Obama to choose Scalia's replacement in the last year of his Presidency.

They have a point but I doubt that the present Senate leadership will give any credence to this argument.
Obama nominated Kagan and she was confirmed during the midterms.
Mid terms are not presidential elections. It is not senators who make the nomination, it is the President and in 2016 Obama was on his way out.
Schumer can go and pound sand. And he can take with him the leftist imbeciles who are now trying to invent new judiciary nomination rules again

P.S. Hey Schumer: Mitch warned you not to get rid of the judiciary filibuster rule.
"It won't be long until you regret it" Here is the video: https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/sta...76628342595584
Attached Images
File Type: jpg DgufE7_U8AAaiKV.jpg (66.2 KB, 15 views)
__________________
BLACK RIFLES MATTER!


Last edited by tankarian; 06-27-2018 at 3:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 06-27-2018, 3:44 PM
2761377's Avatar
2761377 2761377 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: the V ring
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

the whole "stolen seat" argument is ludicrous and contradictory. it presupposes that Garland would have been confirmed as the result of the tradition of respect to a sitting President.

which clearly does not apply to any Trump nominee. the demonrats are already calling for ultimate obstruction to a nominee as yet unnamed.

the reality is confirmation hearings for Garland would have been a waste of valuable time. there is no way he would have been confirmed by a Republican Senate.

so save the analogies to 2016. Nothing about this seat is in anyway comparable.
__________________
MAGA
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 06-27-2018, 3:46 PM
CessnaDriver's Avatar
CessnaDriver CessnaDriver is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,299
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by selfshrevident View Post
Presidents nominate judges. Republicans stance in 2016 was to allow the next president to nominate, not 0bama on the way out the door, and to let voters decide if they wanted a Democrat or Republican appointed judge. Voters spoke in 2016 and said they wanted a President Trump picking judges for the next 4 years. And on top of that, they voted to keep Republicans in power in the senate to confirm those judges.

The Democrats' arguments are thin. Elections have consequences, as previously stated by 0bama.
THIS!
__________________
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic28512_1.gif

"Yeah, like... well, I just want to slap a hippie or two. Maybe even make them get jobs."

Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 06-27-2018, 3:49 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 649
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal View Post
Yes, that's right, only in Presidential election years divisible by 63. It's right there in the Constitution if you look carefully enough.
Not in the Constitution. It's called "the Biden Rule" for a reason...



1992 was a Presidential election year.

One could argue that McConnell extended the time frame. Of course, the counter to that is that, now, Democrats are arguing a new 'codicil' to the Constitution; i.e., that Supreme Court Justices can only be appointed in odd years. Not to mention, if we were to go by Biden's disclaimers regarding "the Biden Rule," only if the President consults with the Senate prior to coming up with a nomination.

So... If you want to claim Republicans aren't following the Constitution, bear in mind that there is a counter argument that Democrats are simply making it up as they go along, essentially ignoring the Constitution and the separation of powers.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 06-27-2018 at 3:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 06-27-2018, 4:03 PM
riderr riderr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,761
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal View Post
Senate Democrats are already demanding that selection of a replacement Justice be held in January to allow voters to weigh in on the midterm elections.

They insist that the Republican Senate set a precedent in 2016 by refusing to allow Obama to choose Scalia's replacement in the last year of his Presidency.

They have a point but I doubt that the present Senate leadership will give any credence to this argument. Republicans don't really believe in the Gander/Goose sauce equivalency except when it's in their own interests.

Is this Republican Hypocrisy? Is there a single CalGunner that is concerned about Republican Hypocrisy?


In any case this certainly changes the climate for 2nd Amendment Rights. Could be very exciting to see what gun rights cases the SCOTUS picks up in the next few years.

Will the CRPA and NRA-ILA pick up the pace of their anti-gun law court challenges? Will they need more money to drive several law suits at once?

Are there any cases in the pipeline that might be ready soon for SCOTUS review?
Dems DO NOT have a point. GOP shows NO hypocrisy here. 2016 was the President election year. The President nominates the judges to the SCOTUS. Obama was on his way out, so GOP rightfully invoked the Biden's rule established in 1992, another MAJOR election year

Actually, Dems show the highest level of hypocrisy, when trying to bring up the 2016 situation now.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 06-27-2018, 4:11 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,030
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal View Post
Is this Republican Hypocrisy? Is there a single CalGunner that is concerned about Republican Hypocrisy?
It's the President that nominates the justices and the President is not going to change in the midterms, so the selected candidate is not going to change no matter what happens in midterms. Why would it then matter whether Republicans wait or not?

Are you possibly suggesting that Democrats could win the Senate and decide not to confirm Trump's candidate? Isn't that what Democrats are claiming was a "dirty trick" with Garland?

I see this as Democratic hypocrisy - they want to pull off what they said was a huge no-no. Just continuation of the Democratic hypocrisy in killing filibuster, then complaining that it was used against them.

You need to analyze the situation beyond the talking points from Huffington Post.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 06-27-2018, 4:17 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,030
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
One could argue that McConnell extended the time frame.
I would argue that the appointment requires a consent from the Senate and the Senate simply didn't consent. It's like a girl at the bar saying "no."

Democrats would be completely within their right not to consent to Trump's nominee should they gain control of the Senate. Of course, this would be a hypocrisy for them since they claimed it was not allowed, but that's par for the course for the Democrats. Either way, Republicans will appoint the new justice and this will be all old news by the election time.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 06-27-2018, 4:19 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,030
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Realistically, some Republican Senators might stonewall in order to spite Trump, but then there are some Democratic Senators that will pay dearly in November if they end up being against a qualified candidate.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 06-27-2018, 4:41 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 649
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
I would argue that the appointment requires a consent from the Senate and the Senate simply didn't consent. It's like a girl at the bar saying "no."
Absolutely.

My point was that Biden, in denying "the Biden Rule," turned around and claimed, in essence, that the President needs to consult with the Legislature, including the "opposition," prior to naming a nominee. That's his definition of "Advice and Consent." While there is a certain amount of that which goes on, that's not a stipulation of the Constitution...

Quote:
...and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court...
In other words, for Biden, it's get our advice/consent, first, then nominate, then we consent, then you appoint.

As per the Constitution, the President nominates, then the Senate advises/consents, then the President appoints.

Insofar as McConnell 'extending the time frame,' it's hard to argue he didn't. Biden suggested his "rule" at the end of July, about 3 months prior to the election, and left open the idea that confirmation hearings would be held immediately after the election. Obama nominated Garland in mid-March, nearly 8 months prior to the election and there seemed little hope for Democrats that the Senate would allow for confirmation hearings between the first week of November and the last week of January. Still, there was an argument to be made, especially given that Obama was a lame duck, that whichever 'new' President should have the choice of nominee; particularly given the divisions in the country.

Interestingly, those who claim that Kennedy was confirmed in an election year (1988), don't seem to want to acknowledge that he was nominated in 1987, after Bork was "Bork'd" and the withdrawal of Douglas Ginsberg. Kennedy was also passed with a 97-0 confirmation. (Interestingly, one of those who missed the vote was... Joe Biden.)

In the current mess, if we follow the Democrat's 'logic,' a Supreme Court Justice could only be nominated in odd, non-election, years.

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 06-27-2018 at 4:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 06-27-2018, 4:50 PM
LW6PPC LW6PPC is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 33
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal View Post
Senate Democrats are already demanding that selection of a replacement Justice be held in January to allow voters to weigh in on the midterm elections.

They insist that the Republican Senate set a precedent in 2016 by refusing to allow Obama to choose Scalia's replacement in the last year of his Presidency.

They have a point but I doubt that the present Senate leadership will give any credence to this argument. Republicans don't really believe in the Gander/Goose sauce equivalency except when it's in their own interests.

Is this Republican Hypocrisy? Is there a single CalGunner that is concerned about Republican Hypocrisy?
No, they don't have a point and its not hypocrisy and here is the reason why. The so called "Biden rule" is to not appoint a judge during a Presidential election year. The Democrats are trying to apply the Biden rule to a midterm election year which is absolute BS. Trump needs to appoint a great judge and lets be done with it.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 06-27-2018, 5:34 PM
ja308 ja308 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 8,963
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This going to be fun!!!
__________________
Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.
Ayn Rand
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 06-27-2018, 9:33 PM
Blade Gunner's Avatar
Blade Gunner Blade Gunner is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,347
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

One down, one to go.
__________________
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you're doing it all wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 06-27-2018, 9:49 PM
darkshire's Avatar
darkshire darkshire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,142
iTrader: 69 / 100%
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blade Gunner View Post
One down, one to go.
I know a ranch down in Texas RBG should visit now that the supreme Court is in recess...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 06-27-2018, 10:55 PM
tenemae's Avatar
tenemae tenemae is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somewhere Near LA
Posts: 516
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkshire View Post
I know a ranch down in Texas RBG should visit now that the supreme Court is in recess...
I hear their beds are to die for
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 06-28-2018, 9:03 AM
Wordupmybrotha's Avatar
Wordupmybrotha Wordupmybrotha is offline
From Anotha Motha
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 4,069
iTrader: 50 / 100%
Default

Just waiting on Ruth Vader...
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 06-28-2018, 9:06 AM
Wordupmybrotha's Avatar
Wordupmybrotha Wordupmybrotha is offline
From Anotha Motha
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Pasadena, CA
Posts: 4,069
iTrader: 50 / 100%
Default

Stephen Breyer (79) is no spring chicken either.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 06-28-2018, 9:39 AM
cockedandglocked's Avatar
cockedandglocked cockedandglocked is offline
I'm with stupid ☝️
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Near Excremento
Posts: 14,737
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Always a classic

__________________


Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 06-28-2018, 10:30 AM
GreggieBoy's Avatar
GreggieBoy GreggieBoy is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 597
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The thing that scares me is the idea of waiting until the fall to nominate Kennedy's replacement. Confirmation wheels turn slowly. Given the importance of this appointment there will be fierce fighting on both sides. Allowing it too close to the midterm elections is way too risky. Definitely in this case the sooner the better.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 06-28-2018, 10:40 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,136
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GreggieBoy View Post
The thing that scares me is the idea of waiting until the fall to nominate Kennedy's replacement. Confirmation wheels turn slowly. Given the importance of this appointment there will be fierce fighting on both sides. Allowing it too close to the midterm elections is way too risky. Definitely in this case the sooner the better.
Is it too risky? I'm not sure we know that.

Remember, none of this happens in a vacuum - the SCOTUS pick, the midterms, the next Presidential election, who controls the Senate -- it's all in play.

What if it's true that this SCOTUS seat motivates the Republican base to get out and vote? What if it really gets people out there voting for the Rs, and that helps keep control of the Senate?

What if we lose that ability to motivate the base (or to motivate them more than the hysterical Ds are motivated) and we lose control of the Senate? Then we get Obama-style government gridlock, and the voters kick Trump out next election because as we saw, voters hate gridlocked government. So we lose the Senate and the executive branch, not to mention any further SCOTUS seats Trump gets to pick -- if we've lost the Senate, Trump will never seat another Justice, and all his federal bench picks will also go unconfirmed, so we'll keep getting stupid rulings from places like the 9th.

So maybe it's too risky to seat the pick right now? Bottom line, I don't know, but it's a possibility. We can be sure both parties are reading the tea leaves as best they can, with all these factors in mind.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 06-28-2018, 10:41 AM
armenjs802's Avatar
armenjs802 armenjs802 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: View W/bars on windows Glendale, Kali
Posts: 1,020
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

One name only Sen. Mike Lee.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 06-28-2018, 11:40 AM
Phalanx20mm's Avatar
Phalanx20mm Phalanx20mm is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Bay
Posts: 397
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

The OP's link was CNN, that's why I quoted CNN. I thought their assessment was ridiculous that's why I commented.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 06-28-2018, 12:51 PM
sgtmrangel's Avatar
sgtmrangel sgtmrangel is online now
VETERAN
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: SGV
Posts: 267
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cockedandglocked View Post
Always a classic

Lol!
__________________
All Rifles Matter
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 06-28-2018, 10:09 PM
okkleiner okkleiner is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 7
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by armenjs802 View Post
One name only Sen. Mike Lee.
Mike Lee seems to be the current rumored front runner that Trump is going to pick.

In Lee’s official government page, his issue section regarding the second amendment reads, “Gun control isn’t about guns — it’s about control. And the right to bear arms isn’t about the arms — it’s about the right.”

Lee went on to argue that although governments can and should protect individual liberty, this is “first and foremost the job of the people”, and that “the first defense against criminal threats to our persons and our property is ourselves,” which is why he believes in the right of gun ownership.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 06-29-2018, 9:27 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,030
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by okkleiner View Post
Mike Lee seems to be the current rumored front runner that Trump is going to pick.
Unlikely. If anything, it would be his brother who is a judge.

Trump will pick not only based on qualifications, but also on the ability to minimize the drama. A judge who has no history on abortion and who had been confirmed by a lot of members of the current Senate is an ideal candidate - any questions about Roe v. Wade will be "I respect precedent, it's settled law" (remember how Sotomayor answered about "Heller?"), and there will be a lot of Democratic senators who had already voted to confirm the person.

It's much easier to attack Mike Lee, a politician with clear political views, than a judge.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 06-29-2018, 9:33 AM
AKSOG's Avatar
AKSOG AKSOG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: So-Cal
Posts: 3,753
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

This is what we needed. We don't need Ginsberg gone but it would certainly help. Having a conservative majority should also keep some of the lower courts living in the liberal wild west in check considerably more.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 06-29-2018, 9:50 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,136
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AKSOG View Post
This is what we needed. We don't need Ginsberg gone but it would certainly help. Having a conservative majority should also keep some of the lower courts living in the liberal wild west in check considerably more.
We might need Ginsburg gone (or other anti) -- we don't know. There is a rumor that Winkler started which says the other Justices were unsure how Kennedy would vote on guns, but Winkler had nothing to back up that rumor -- he may have started it to deflect from the true antis, who knows.

But with Kennedy gone, the theory can at least be tested, assuming Trump's picks are pro 2A, which is difficult to tell. If Kennedy was the problem, then his removal clears the way for not just getting cert to good 2A cases, but also to win them.

The biggest risk here is the classic R stupidity of appointing a moderate to appease the Ds -- another Souter or OConner. Trump needs to learn this lesson from history and push forward with a very pro 2A conservative candidate. Also, I'm afraid Trump is more about abortion as his big issue, and guns are just a "nice to have". Nothing to base that on, like Winkler
Time will tell.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 06-29-2018, 10:00 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 14,030
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
The biggest risk here is the classic R stupidity of appointing a moderate to appease the Ds -- another Souter or OConner.
That's not happening this time. Expect another originalist such as Gorsuch.

Gloves are off and have been off since Reid started it. At this time, there is no appeasement, just winning while in position to win. The other side would do no less and, when they are in the majority, they will certainly just push their own agenda.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 06-29-2018, 10:01 AM
AKSOG's Avatar
AKSOG AKSOG is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: So-Cal
Posts: 3,753
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
We might need Ginsburg gone (or other anti) -- we don't know. There is a rumor that Winkler started which says the other Justices were unsure how Kennedy would vote on guns, but Winkler had nothing to back up that rumor -- he may have started it to deflect from the true antis, who knows.

But with Kennedy gone, the theory can at least be tested, assuming Trump's picks are pro 2A, which is difficult to tell. If Kennedy was the problem, then his removal clears the way for not just getting cert to good 2A cases, but also to win them.

The biggest risk here is the classic R stupidity of appointing a moderate to appease the Ds -- another Souter or OConner. Trump needs to learn this lesson from history and push forward with a very pro 2A conservative candidate. Also, I'm afraid Trump is more about abortion as his big issue, and guns are just a "nice to have". Nothing to base that on, like Winkler
Time will tell.
I think Kennedy being a wild card was a key factor in the lack of certs. I'm confident Trump will put another Gorsuch-esque constitutionalist in the seat. I remain optimistic, and I suspect Trump doesn't feel obligated to appease the democrats at all at this point.

Last edited by AKSOG; 06-29-2018 at 10:03 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 9:07 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.