Supreme Court's Future Hinges on Election

[yellowfin]

Maybe i'm missing something here, but the senate is in no way obligated or guaranteed to approve any TPFI appointees by default.

[xrMike]

This topic's pointless.

I agree that it's pointless, but for another reason (or rather, for a reason in addition to yours)...

California goes BLUE in November -- no way around it, no talking or wishing on a star is going to change it -- so therefore all of CA's 55 electoral votes go blue as well.

No point in Californians even discussing SCOTUS as it relates to this election, unless in a purely academic sense. Nothing that happens here on 11/4/09 will affect it in any way.

[CoinStar]

Enemy, really? The NRA has given McCain a C+ rating, they have had some differences, but hardly is he the enemy.

Perhaps I wasn't clear.

I'm not the one who put forth the idea that McCain is to be feared. The NRA has done a bang up job of making him the boogeyman for well over a decade now and yet here we are today and he's apparently the "best" we have going for us gun nuts. Since McCain/Feingold was first introduced, he has been spared absolutely no criticism for it from Wayne LaPierre and the NRA, et al. This fact isn't going unnoticed by our detractors either.

That is exactly the type of short term thinking which Obama's campaign want s to see.

I don't know how you've arrived at that from what I wrote but if we're going to be talking about short-term thinking (and for that matter "facts, records and history"), please see the above regarding McCain.

How about adding some long term thinking into your thought process, and looking at all the facts, records, and history.

What "long-term thinking" have I missed?

If anything, single-issue voters are the ones who are missing the bigger picture here. All this yammering on about how Obama will take all of our guns and how a McCain presidency is the only solution based on the notion of his potential Supreme Court appointments, will be pointless when we're all standing in soup lines with our de-valued handfuls of money.

None of what I'm saying is meant to be an endorsement for any particular candidate either so don't try to read into this where you think I land on the political spectrum. You will probably miss the mark if you do. All I'm doing is simply pointing out the lunacy of fashioning a vote for POTUS based on potential court appointments and how they may effect the RKBA. It's certainly anyone's right to vote that way, but this sort of rhetoric doesn't sell very well with people who are actually informed on the issues at large.

[Jpach]

Is there a high likelyhood of any of the SCOTUS Justices dying, retiring, or resigning within the next 4 years?

[bulgron]

Is there a high likelyhood of any of the SCOTUS Justices dying, retiring, or resigning within the next 4 years?

Stevens will be 90 years old in 2010, and I've heard it rumored that he's just hanging out in the court so that he can be the first justice to make it to 90. So at a minimum I expect him to retire in the next 4 years. Stevens is an extremely liberal justice, so if an Obama administration replaces him with another liberal justice it won't change much at all. However, if a McCain administration could replace him with a conservative or even moderate justice, then our grip on the 2A would be that much stronger.

After Stevens, there's a few justices in their 70's. Notably, Kennedy and Scalia. If something happens to either of those guys in an Obama administration, we lose the court insofar as gun rights go.

[300]

One point that has apparently been overlooked is the issue of court packing by an Obama administration.

With a majority in the House and 60 seats in the senate; the only thing that would prevent "President Obama" from accomplishing that would be his own conscience.

Thus, regardless of who retires from SCOTUS, it wouldn't really matter now would it when Rep. Pelosi proudly announces the passage of the new house bill allowing an increase in SCOTUS justices to, say 11. With 60 seats in the senate there would obviously be no opposition. "President Obama" would quickly sign the bill and with much fanfare appoint 4-6 new justices the likes of Stevens.

Heller part deux would of course find the previous Individual Rights ruling in error. After that well........

Is Obama capable of such nefarious methods to promote his Socialist ideals? I don't know. But it would be possible.

[yellowfin]

One point that has apparently been overlooked is the issue of court packing by an Obama administration.

With a majority in the House and 60 seats in the senate; the only thing that would prevent "President Obama" from accomplishing that would be his own conscience.
Is Obama capable of such nefarious methods to promote his Socialist ideals? I don't know. But it would be possible.

There is not a single shred of doubt here that such is exactly what he would do. The only question is how many days he'd take to do it.