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
  #1  
Old 11-17-2017, 8:17 PM
MolonLabe2008's Avatar
MolonLabe2008 MolonLabe2008 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,043
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Thumbs up Trump adds 5 conservative judges to shortlist of potential SCOTUS nominees



Trump administration is preparing for the next Supreme Court nomination. We don’t know when that will be, but the prevailing wisdom is that Justice Kennedy will retire after this term ends in June. With the filibuster gone, there isn’t much Democrats can do to stop a nominee so long as the nominee has solid Republican support. So it’s important that someone of high caliber be nominated so that no Republicans succumb to the inevitable media pressure, and their own weak knees.

That will be even more important if the nomination is replacing someone other than Kennedy. If Ruth Bader Ginsburg were to leave the Supreme Court, and Trump were to nominate a replacement, it would be liberals’ nightmare.

Trump today took a big step towards preparing for the next Supreme Court fight, adding 5 conservative judges to the Supreme Court shortlist, Reuters reports:

Read more here...
https://legalinsurrection.com/2017/1...otus-nominees/
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-17-2017, 8:52 PM
orangeusa's Avatar
orangeusa orangeusa is offline
Whatever
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Orange
Posts: 9,055
iTrader: 85 / 100%
Default

Newsom sounds amazing. 45 years old and a staunch 2A proponent.
Google "Federalist Society" - which Scalia was also a member of.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-17-2017, 9:17 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,069
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orangeusa View Post
Newsom sounds amazing. 45 years old and a staunch 2A proponent.
Google "Federalist Society" - which Scalia was also a member of.
Meh, they sound okay.

We should be pushing for liberal shriek worthy people who believe in reactionary liberal and moderate shriek worthy policies.

I’ll say again: we should be pushing for Cody Wilson or James Yeager or joe “your dead kids don’t trump my rights” wurtzelbacher on the court.

Screw playing nice.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-17-2017, 10:04 PM
meno377's Avatar
meno377 meno377 is offline
小さな女性
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: California
Posts: 4,911
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

I wish he would have kept a lid on it for now.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fjold View Post
I've been married so long that I don't even look both ways when I cross the street.
Quote:
Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program.
-Milton Friedman


http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/signaturepics/sigpic164573_1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-17-2017, 10:37 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 10,220
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Since as of now, there are no SCOTUS seats empty. The Donald should be filling the plethora of circuit bench seats that are gathering dust while the libs run rampant in lower courts. Like the 9th Circus.


JM2c
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-18-2017, 6:32 AM
MolonLabe2008's Avatar
MolonLabe2008 MolonLabe2008 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,043
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Since as of now, there are no SCOTUS seats empty. The Donald should be filling the plethora of circuit bench seats that are gathering dust while the libs run rampant in lower courts. Like the 9th Circus.


JM2c
It's not up to Trump...

http://www.businessinsider.com/mccon...firmed-2017-11
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-18-2017, 6:46 AM
wpage's Avatar
wpage wpage is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6,047
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Its good to get them out early. So the psychopaths have time to make the false claims while it does not matter...
__________________
God so loved the world He gave His only Son... Believe in Him and have everlasting life.
John 3:16

NRA,,, Lifer

United Air Epic Fail Video ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u99Q7pNAjvg
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-18-2017, 6:49 AM
71MUSTY's Avatar
71MUSTY 71MUSTY is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,026
iTrader: 17 / 100%
Default

Chess
__________________
Only slaves don't need guns

Quote:
Originally Posted by epilepticninja View Post
Americans vs. Democrats
We stand for the Anthem, we kneel for the cross


We already have the only reasonable Gun Control we need, It's called the Second Amendment and it's the government it controls.


What doesn't kill me, better run
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-18-2017, 7:01 AM
G-Man WC's Avatar
G-Man WC G-Man WC is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: East Bay CoCo
Posts: 10,994
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Since as of now, there are no SCOTUS seats empty. The Donald should be filling the plethora of circuit bench seats that are gathering dust while the libs run rampant in lower courts. Like the 9th Circus.


JM2c
Maybe it's just a disinformation shiny thrown out to insight rage and divert attention.... while over here in the underground bunker at a more local level.
__________________
If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.
-Samuel Adams
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-18-2017, 8:15 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,069
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G-Man WC View Post
Maybe it's just a disinformation shiny thrown out to insight rage and divert attention.... while over here in the underground bunker at a more local level.
Or it’s to make people feel Trump is doing more than he is.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-18-2017, 4:20 PM
G-Man WC's Avatar
G-Man WC G-Man WC is offline
In Memoriam
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: East Bay CoCo
Posts: 10,994
iTrader: 52 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowimpactuser View Post
Or it’s to make people feel Trump is doing more than he is.
Could be that to until the whole Ivory thing gets cleared up?

-g
__________________
If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.
-Samuel Adams
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-18-2017, 4:26 PM
orangeusa's Avatar
orangeusa orangeusa is offline
Whatever
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Orange
Posts: 9,055
iTrader: 85 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 71MUSTY View Post
Chess
May be checkers as far as we know. But I hope you are right.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-18-2017, 4:37 PM
skyscraper's Avatar
skyscraper skyscraper is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,121
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Since as of now, there are no SCOTUS seats empty. The Donald should be filling the plethora of circuit bench seats that are gathering dust while the libs run rampant in lower courts. Like the 9th Circus.


JM2c
You must not know how that works. You should read up on current events.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-18-2017, 6:39 PM
Half Cocked's Avatar
Half Cocked Half Cocked is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Stuck in the Socialist Republik of Kalifornistan
Posts: 750
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Hopefully Trump will be able to nominate and have all five appointed! MAGA!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-18-2017, 9:15 PM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 5,625
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Since as of now, there are no SCOTUS seats empty. The Donald should be filling the plethora of circuit bench seats that are gathering dust while the libs run rampant in lower courts. Like the 9th Circus.


JM2c
Sure like his last pick. BRETT TALLEY. A lawyer for all of 3 years! Has NEVER tried a case, and is an unemployed "writer" who just happened to fail to mention that his wife is a White house lawyer.

What a fine choice!
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/u...ge-senate.html
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-18-2017, 9:56 PM
Cody's Avatar
Cody Cody is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,148
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MolonLabe2008 View Post
That will be even more important if the nomination is replacing someone other than Kennedy. If Ruth Bader Ginsburg were to leave the Supreme Court, and Trump were to nominate a replacement, it would be liberals’ nightmare.
Ginsberg is 84. I think that's too old to be making these decisions. She was appointed by Bill Clinton 24 years ago. I know it's an appointment for life but they should cap them with mandatory retirement at 80. What is if she lives to be 95?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-18-2017, 10:37 PM
Socal858's Avatar
Socal858 Socal858 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,177
iTrader: 46 / 100%
Default

hasnt RBG been having health issues and falling asleep at the helm? the liberals must be injecting her with wonderdrugs or something, good grief.

needs to be replaced with a conservative bigly quick.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-18-2017, 10:43 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 10,220
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Since as of now, there are no SCOTUS seats empty. The Donald should be filling the plethora of circuit bench seats that are gathering dust while the libs run rampant in lower courts. Like the 9th Circus.


JM2c
MolonLabe2008, said.

Quote:
It's not up to Trump...
Yes, it is up to Trump to start the process. Read below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skyscraper View Post
You must not know how that works. You should read up on current events.
I can only guess that you missed my meaning of "filling" to be fulfilling his part in the process by "Nominating" Fed Judges. Yes, that is how it works. POTUS nominates, Senate confirms or rejects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 71MUSTY View Post
Chess
We hear a lot of the "chess v checkers" crap don't we? The problem with playing chess with peoples rights. Is that us lowly "pawns" [citizen's rights] are always the first to be sacrificed.

At least with checkers, all the pieces start as true equals.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
Sure like his last pick. BRETT TALLEY. A lawyer for all of 3 years! Has NEVER tried a case, and is an unemployed "writer" who just happened to fail to mention that his wife is a White house lawyer.

What a fine choice!
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/u...ge-senate.html
Better an inexperienced Conservative, that believes it is a judge's function to determine Constitutionality on the basis of the document as written. Than long in the tooth turds in robes, with years of experience at intentionally subverting the words it contains in order to fulfill their personal political agendas. Such as Thomas and his cronies, on the 9th Circus did with Peruta.

And will likely do again, when "Duncan" makes it to the 9th.

JM2c......
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-19-2017, 12:49 AM
squeeze squeeze is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,196
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If I am not mistaken: there is no rule/law that defines how many Supreme Court justices there are-why not just nominate these people now?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-19-2017, 1:21 AM
mrdd mrdd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Somewhere Over The Rainbow
Posts: 1,996
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by squeeze View Post
If I am not mistaken: there is no rule/law that defines how many Supreme Court justices there are-why not just nominate these people now?
28 USC § 1. Number of justices; quorum
The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-19-2017, 1:38 AM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 14,603
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by squeeze View Post
If I am not mistaken: there is no rule/law that defines how many Supreme Court justices there are-why not just nominate these people now?
The Judiciary Act of 1869, passed by Congress, defines the make up of the Supreme Court and its other responsibilities. Which is why FDR had to go through Congress in his court packing scheme.

Regarding the current court make up and who the President may nominate, if Justice Kennedy resigns next June you can expect the Democrats to raise Scalia like objections pushing to hold off until the following January when the new Senate seats. Senator McCain should be away from the Senate by then, with perhaps a solid conservative having been appointed by the AZ Republican Governor.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-19-2017, 5:56 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 12,285
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cody View Post
Ginsberg is 84. I think that's too old to be making these decisions. She was appointed by Bill Clinton 24 years ago. I know it's an appointment for life but they should cap them with mandatory retirement at 80. What is if she lives to be 95?
If Ginsberg was forced to retire at 80, that means Obama would have chosen her replacement....
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-19-2017, 8:03 AM
Cody's Avatar
Cody Cody is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,148
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
If Ginsberg was forced to retire at 80, that means Obama would have chosen her replacement....
What's the difference if she's in there another 15 years from now?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-19-2017, 8:50 AM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 5,625
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
MolonLabe2008, said.



Yes, it is up to Trump to start the process. Read below.



I can only guess that you missed my meaning of "filling" to be fulfilling his part in the process by "Nominating" Fed Judges. Yes, that is how it works. POTUS nominates, Senate confirms or rejects.



We hear a lot of the "chess v checkers" crap don't we? The problem with playing chess with peoples rights. Is that us lowly "pawns" [citizen's rights] are always the first to be sacrificed.

At least with checkers, all the pieces start as true equals.




Better an inexperienced Conservative, that believes it is a judge's function to determine Constitutionality on the basis of the document as written. Than long in the tooth turds in robes, with years of experience at intentionally subverting the words it contains in order to fulfill their personal political agendas. Such as Thomas and his cronies, on the 9th Circus did with Peruta.

And will likely do again, when "Duncan" makes it to the 9th.

JM2c......
REALLY? Not just inexperienced, TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED! AND only there b/c his WIFE is a WH lawyer. THAT'S your preference. You REALLY need to examine your priorities.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-19-2017, 8:51 AM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 5,625
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by squeeze View Post
If I am not mistaken: there is no rule/law that defines how many Supreme Court justices there are-why not just nominate these people now?
B/C the other side will get to do it when THEY are in charge. Sooner or later, you wind up with DOZENS of SC justices.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-19-2017, 9:12 AM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 2,069
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
REALLY? Not just inexperienced, TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED! AND only there b/c his WIFE is a WH lawyer. THAT'S your preference. You REALLY need to examine your priorities.
In 2013, he wrote on his blog that armed revolution was an important defense against tyrannical government. Ms. Feinstein asked in her written questions when Mr. Talley believed it would become appropriate for American citizens to participate in an armed uprising against the government.At the committee vote on Thursday, Ms. Feinstein took greatest issue with Mr. Talley’s professed views on gun control. In 2013, about a month after a gunman killed 20 children at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., Mr. Talley on his blog pledged his total support to the National Rifle Association, “financially, politically and intellectually.”

Ms. Feinstein said she had asked Mr. Talley whether, if confirmed, he would commit to recusing himself in cases involving weapons. He refused.

These are his qualifications.

If you’re telling us our priorities are wrong; you’re an object lesson of why calguns is such crap today.

Total loser conservative view that it’s better to lose with your principles than win dishonorably.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by lowimpactuser; 11-19-2017 at 9:25 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-19-2017, 9:37 AM
Hoop's Avatar
Hoop Hoop is offline
Ready fo HILLARY!!
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Auburn
Posts: 11,514
iTrader: 77 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Since as of now, there are no SCOTUS seats empty. The Donald should be filling the plethora of circuit bench seats that are gathering dust while the libs run rampant in lower courts. Like the 9th Circus.


JM2c
You do realize that Congress has to approve a lot of those, right? Otherwise they would've already happened.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-19-2017, 5:00 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 14,603
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
REALLY? Not just inexperienced, TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED! AND only there b/c his WIFE is a WH lawyer. THAT'S your preference. You REALLY need to examine your priorities.
Aw relax, Roman Hruska was right -

And when you look at previous Justices, their abilities and how they got on the court - so many political hacks or hadn't even been graduated from law school. The court can handle a less than stellar performer now and again. Is that any worse than a Justice whose opinions are set in stone, impervious to influence or debate?

It's unfortunate the court has become so important. That it has means there is failure in our political processes.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-19-2017, 5:07 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 14,603
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoop View Post
You do realize that Congress has to approve a lot of those, right? Otherwise they would've already happened.
More important than presidential nomination or full Senate confirmation is senatorial courtesy. Without it those lower court federal judgeship's don't get filled. It would be interesting to see in which states those positions are currently open.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-19-2017, 5:41 PM
M1NM M1NM is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: West Covina
Posts: 7,760
iTrader: 54 / 100%
Default

SCOTUS is not about trying cases. It's about figuring out if something violates the Constitution - period. There is a lot of philosophy involved into what was intended in the first place.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-19-2017, 8:25 PM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 4,876
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

When 'long standing prohibitions' trump the constitution there is a serious problem. Some fresh blood might clear that up.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-22-2017, 4:26 PM
SemperFi1775's Avatar
SemperFi1775 SemperFi1775 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 715
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
Sure like his last pick. BRETT TALLEY. A lawyer for all of 3 years! Has NEVER tried a case, and is an unemployed "writer" who just happened to fail to mention that his wife is a White house lawyer.

What a fine choice!
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/u...ge-senate.html
you're giving Trump way too much credit...;-)
__________________
"What the hell happened to land of the free and home of the brave???"
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-09-2017, 7:29 AM
ja308 ja308 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 12,660
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Personally President Trump is the 1st President in my lifetime who has done exactly what he said he would do and I like the majority who elected him approve 100% of what he!s done and says he will do !

That said how can any critisise his nominees when the swamp promoted,worshipped,elevated this racist fool who has ruled against us on every important question regarding Liberty !

Quote of the Day
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
by ADMINISTRATOR on MAY 26, 2009
That was from Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California Berkeley School of Law in 2001.

Sorry but such racism should have no place in our color blind system !
One really needs to question exactly what rich cultural experiences this wise Latina is referring to ?
Could it be demanding a foreign language by used in place of English?
Could it be demanding people who violate immigration laws by welcomed and supported by money borrowed at interest ?
Could it be demanding that America import an uneducated underclass that Mexico wants to rid itself of ?

Inquiring minds must examine the concept of how a "wise latina" can really make better legal decisions than a white male!
Just saying!

Last edited by ja308; 12-09-2017 at 7:39 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 11:49 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy