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 08-13-2021, 9:56 AM
cz74 cz74 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 250
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default SCOTUS Court Packing and Potential Candidates

The Politburo wanting to force Justice Breyer retire early and of course threat of court packing. Someone pointed out the current California People's Supreme Court judges might be candidates. Got me started looking at their background, one person caught my attention:

Leondra Kruger
https://www.courts.ca.gov/33016.htm
http://scocablog.com/what-can-we-lea...supreme-court/

She worked for commie judges in the DC circuit and the late justice John Paul Stevens who said he wanted to rid of 2nd Amendment if he could. She and many like her are our dystopian future...
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-19-2021, 3:28 PM
003 003 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,430
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

I am really not too concerned about the left trying court packing. Mainly, because the Democrats know they will not always be in power, and it is a two way street. If the Democrats do succeed and add liberal justices, the next time the republicans are in power they can add a similar number. Think how crazy it can get with a 30+ member supreme court.

Keep in mind how Harry Reid set up Trump's ability to appoint the three justices he did, by doing away with the filibuster. What goes around comes around.

Last edited by 003; 08-19-2021 at 3:32 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-21-2021, 3:43 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,826
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 003 View Post
I am really not too concerned about the left trying court packing. Mainly, because the Democrats know they will not always be in power, and it is a two way street. If the Democrats do succeed and add liberal justices, the next time the republicans are in power they can add a similar number. Think how crazy it can get with a 30+ member supreme court.

Keep in mind how Harry Reid set up Trump's ability to appoint the three justices he did, by doing away with the filibuster. What goes around comes around.
With all the Afghanistan chaos, there's no political capital to try something like this right now.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-21-2021, 9:49 AM
sulla123 sulla123 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 275
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default I don't agree

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
With all the Afghanistan chaos, there's no political capital to try something like this right now.
I think they see the midterms as a disaster, and will do everything they can in the next 14 months because they see it slipping away. Besides, 14 months is a long time, lot can change.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-06-2021, 4:53 AM
AR22 AR22 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Columbus NE
Posts: 1,658
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

You are right..The midterms are going to be a complete disaster for the Dems..They have the last remaining 14 months, and they are done..I have thought the party was dead several times before though..But I think they have just gone way too far this time with their radical idealism..And I think this time they have put the final nail in their coffin..

Dem voters even have a distaste for the party now..Some because they had gone way too far, some hate them because they have not gone far enough..Both are very bad scenarios for them, and add up to a huge loss next November.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-09-2021, 6:28 AM
dawgcasa dawgcasa is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 306
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by press1280 View Post
With all the Afghanistan chaos, there's no political capital to try something like this right now.
Normally, I’d agree with you. But I believe the likes of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and their brethren believe they are on the cusp of permanently ‘transforming’ American such that no change in the balance of politics can roll anything back. If they succeed in passing that $3.5T reconciliation bill (actually $4.5T-$5.5T if it were scored honestly), and their HR1 voting bill, they may be right. So far in our history there’s been little success in rolling back any entitlement program once it is established.

Right now, the only thing blocking it is Manchin. It is yet to be seen if his resistance is a temporary negotiating ploy or if it is earnestly and expression of his core beliefs. Given his stated resistance to both the reconciliation bill and any attempt to end the legislative filibuster … and that his state leans red … it would be a welcome surprise if Manchin chose to switch parties and put an end to the dancing game with Pelosi and Schumer.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-09-2021, 7:00 AM
GeeBee49's Avatar
GeeBee49 GeeBee49 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Norwalk, CA
Posts: 1,973
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If the Dems are on borrowed time then someone forgot to tell them. Regardless of what happens at the midterms or in 2024 the radical Dems are not going away. As I've said before there's the next generation of anti-American politicians waiting to move in.
Trump found out just how many sleazy left wing idiots there are in the government. Most of them are still around.
It's no secret that the older Americans who still remember the 20th century are leaving us and being replaced by young people that have been programmed since elementary school. What do you think the results of that will be?
The bottom line is that the Dems will attempt to sabotage SCOTUS (or ignore it) and continue to rig elections because they are not ready to give up the power they have recently acquired (stolen).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-10-2021, 5:12 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 3,389
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 003 View Post
I am really not too concerned about the left trying court packing. Mainly, because the Democrats know they will not always be in power, and it is a two way street. If the Democrats do succeed and add liberal justices, the next time the republicans are in power they can add a similar number. Think how crazy it can get with a 30+ member supreme court.

Keep in mind how Harry Reid set up Trump's ability to appoint the three justices he did, by doing away with the filibuster. What goes around comes around.
Maybe you should be arguing before SCOTUS.

Justice Stephen Breyer says Biden packing the Supreme Court will make people 'lose trust' in the institution

Quote:
Despite calls to expand the size of the Supreme Court, Justice Stephen Breyer has stood firm in his belief that such a reform will erode public faith in the institution.

"One party could do it, I guess another party could do it. On the surface, it seems to me that you start changing these things around, and people will lose trust in the court," Breyer said in an excerpt of an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace airing Sunday...
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-20-2021, 4:54 PM
003 003 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 3,430
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Agree completely with Justice Breyer.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-21-2021, 6:08 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 3,389
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Well... It would appear that the U.K. publication, The Guardian, is open to a conservative justice resigning in lieu of packing the court...

To protect the supreme court’s legitimacy, a conservative justice should step down

Quote:
...It appears that Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett share these worries. In separate remarks this month, both justices sought to assure the public that, in Coney Barrett’s words, “this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks”. Thomas said much the same, seeking to disabuse his listeners of the belief that justices “are just always going right to [their] personal preference”...

But far from recognizing or examining their own role in contributing to the erosion of the court’s legitimacy, the two justices turned to other precincts to assign blame. It’s the media, Thomas whined, that are “destroying our institutions” – this from a justice who dissented from the court’s refusal to hear Trump’s challenge to a Pennsylvania state court decision that extended the deadline for the receipt of mail-in ballots by three days. Thomas acknowledged that the volume of mail-ins at stake had no material bearing on the outcome of the Pennsylvania race; all the same, he was prepared – in a stunning display of either partisanship or tone-deafness – to have the supreme court, scant weeks after the 6 January insurrection, offer tacit support to Trump’s attack on the 2020 election results. And, in now blaming the media for the court’s self-inflicted wounds, Thomas is effectively echoing Trump’s toxic rhetoric about “fake news”. Who is the institution-destroyer here?

Alas, Justice Coney Barrett joined Thomas in attacking the press. The media, she charged, makes decisions such as the Texas case “seem results-oriented”. It is worth noting that the justice made her remarks at the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville, with Senator Mitch McConnell, the center’s namesake, in attendance. It was McConnell, of course, who in the wake of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death six weeks before the 2020 election, pushed through Coney Barrett’s nomination, in transparent violation of the very justification he had offered four years earlier to deny President Obama the right to name a justice to fill a court vacancy that ultimately went to Neil Gorsuch. That McConnell’s cynical manipulation of the rules was designed to compose a court that would produce dependably conservative results appears lost on Coney Barrett. Indeed, it was her vote that was determinative in the Texas case. Had Ginsburg still been on the court, the decision would have gone 5-4 the other way. McConnell secured the results he wanted.

If Coney Barrett were genuinely concerned with promoting the court’s legitimacy, she might consider resigning. Or rather, she and Gorsuch might agree to flip a coin to decide who should leave the court. If presidents do not get to replace justices in an election year, then Coney Barrett’s confirmation is illegitimate; and if presidents do get to replace, then Gorsuch’s confirmation must be illegitimate. You can’t have it both ways – not if you believe that the composition of the court should be the product of a principled process...
Thus, we get a look into the 'thinking' of the Left; i.e., it's legitimate so long as it benefits us, but it is illegitimate if it doesn't and changes are required and the conservative side must make the sacrifice.

That's something we already knew. But, it is refreshing to have it so blatantly out in the open, even if it is from an U.K. owned publication.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-14-2021, 7:24 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 3,389
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Biden's Supreme Court commission is 'divided' on whether expanding the court is a good idea

Quote:
President Joe Biden's commission to study Supreme Court reforms released draft materials on Thursday, ahead of its final report due next month.

The commissioners wrote they are "divided" on whether a reform proposal that has sparked national debate, adding more justices to the nine-member bench, "would be wise."...

It's "likely that a 'balanced bench' would continue to produce a significant number of divided results in contested cases, even on an evenly divided Court, keeping the Court at the center of charged political debates, for better or worse," the draft report said...

The commissioners wrote that "rather than calm the controversy surrounding the Supreme Court, expansion could further degrade the confirmation process. There could be significant battles over any Justice added by a Court expansion measure."

However, one court reform proposal that commissioners said has gained "bipartisan support" is setting term limits for justices, who currently serve lifetime appointments...
The Commission will hold its next public meeting on October 15, 2021 from 10:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. EST. Here are the listed 'discussion materials' which are, presumably, the draft copies noted in the article...
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-14-2021, 8:14 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Beyond the reach...
Posts: 3,790
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
That's a real scary read right there. It's basically 30 pages (plus 10 pages of citations) of how to limit the courts ability to negate unconstitutional legislation. If they were to limit, or restrict, the courts jurisdiction, the power hungry majority would be able to run roughshod over the minority (politically peaking).

Do they not understand that were it not for the structure of the court we would still have "separate but equal".
__________________
Quote:
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-15-2021, 8:01 AM
cz74 cz74 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 250
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

That is indeed very scary, a document directly on the white house website wanting to strangle the supreme court. The "super majority" requirement is all we need to know their motive.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-15-2021, 7:31 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 3,389
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

At least there's generally an acknowledgement throughout the piece that each of the 'schemes' may not be Constitutional. The crux of it, at least what I can get from a quick scan, is that they are attempting to eliminate the check/balance provided by SCOTUS. To do that, they have to find a way around the Constitution itself.

The fundamental vulnerability, however, is that much of how things work within the Judiciary is via tradition, not Constitutional mandate. That brings up the underlying question... How much Constitutional authority do the Executive and Legislative Branches have to 'dictate' how the Judicial Branch does things traditionally considered to be within their Constitutional authority/mandate? Is what they are proposing within the accepted bounds of checks/balances or is it truly yet another power grab/overreach? If the former, do they have the votes to pull it off; i.e., it would likely take more than just Democrats? If the latter, is it likely to emulate what we have here in California...



In other words, it could be a 'test' of how much power SCOTUS actually has to enforce its own rulings and Judiciary power in general, particularly given that the Judicial Branch has traditionally been thought of as the weakest branch of Government. Remember, Biden has already defied SCOTUS via the eviction moratorium. He's already 'called out' SCOTUS on the Texas abortion ban...

Quote:
...For the majority to do this without a hearing, without the benefit of an opinion from a court below, and without due consideration of the issues, insults the rule of law and the rights of all Americans to seek redress from our courts...
He's also being encouraged to continue 'ignoring' the SCOTUS ruling related to the "Remain in Mexico" program, even as the news is declaring... U.S. prepares to resume Trump 'Remain in Mexico' asylum policy in November.

Once again, it highlights the 'double/multiple/no standard' position the Left and the Democrats have been adopting. They demand adherence to a law they agree with and/or which benefits them, but they flagrantly ignore and ensure no consequences for those who violate the laws they disagree with or see as of no benefit to them. It's not... quite... chaos/anarchy and not... quite... authoritarian rule. But, it comes awfully close on both counts.

Ultimately, it certainly isn't how Government was intended to work and isn't sustainable without imposition of authoritarian rule.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-16-2021, 12:02 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 3,389
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

10/16/21... Conservatives quit Biden's court-packing commission

Quote:
...The White House released its preliminary draft discussion materials Thursday evening, ahead of deliberations by the commission during a virtual hearing on Friday.

Prior to the hearing, conservatives Caleb Nelson, a law professor at the University of Virginia, and Jack Goldsmith, a law professor at Harvard, resigned from the panel, the White House said...

Some members of the bipartisan panel, now down two members from its original 36-person placement in April, called out the framing of discussion materials and alleged it lacked focus on institutional confidence, catering more toward partisan views. Others claimed the materials are "biased" against court-packing.

The draft materials on Thursday included text favoring term limits for judges. The report also noted Congress's legal ability to expand the size of the Supreme Court bench but cautioned against adding justices, an idea popular among some progressives in the Democratic Party.

"This entire discussion is framed in the context of partisan politics. And I actually think that is a disservice to the exploration of this issue," said NAACP Legal Defense Fund President Sherrilyn Ifill regarding court-packing.

Ifill added that several of those who favor court-packing have "genuine concerns" about the rule of law, among other issues...

While White House officials have said the draft materials only serve as an "assessment," some have said the commissioner's initial reaction to the framing of court-packing would lead to a softer tone when the final report is submitted to President Joe Biden in mid-November.

"The final report will thus likely reflect less of an anti-court-packing lean," Cato Institute Vice President Ilya Shapiro told Fox News...

One of the primary bipartisan agreement points surrounding Friday's discussion landed on term limits for justices. The materials cited expert recommendations for an 18-year term limit for justices and noted that term limits for state high court justices are common.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-17-2021, 8:56 AM
SkyHawk's Avatar
SkyHawk SkyHawk is offline
Front Toward Enemy
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Nakatomi Plaza - 30th floor
Posts: 20,361
iTrader: 204 / 100%
Default

They are not going to pack the court nor impose term limits. If they monkey with it all at this point, the entire judicial branch of government becomes a farce - just another bare naked political wing. They know it, we know it. It would be a declaration of war.

All this talk is just running their mouths for the sake of riling up their base.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-17-2021, 10:09 AM
flyer898's Avatar
flyer898 flyer898 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Posts: 1,649
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

Here is a link to the materials the SCOTUS Commission released.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/pcscotus/...cotus-meeting/
It is pretty even-handed. I think it more instructive to read the materials than to read articles about the materials. There are about 200 pages of text, plus additional pages with footnotes. I found it worth my time to read.
__________________
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.” Mark Twain
"One argues to a judge, one does not argue with a judge." Me
"Never argue unless you are getting paid." CDAA
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-17-2021, 10:16 AM
M76's Avatar
M76 M76 is offline
Let's Go Brandon!
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Urbanized Suburbia
Posts: 3,763
iTrader: 95 / 100%
Default

Quote:
California’s newest Supreme Court Justice, Leondra R. Kruger, served from 2007 to 2012 as an Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States. Hired initially by Republican Solicitor General Paul Clement
RINO dumbazz
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunndeal View Post
Stop digging.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-18-2021, 2:30 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 3,389
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyHawk View Post
They are not going to pack the court nor impose term limits. If they monkey with it all at this point, the entire judicial branch of government becomes a farce...

All this talk is just running their mouths for the sake of riling up their base.
I tend to lean the way you do, but others, specifically, Jonathan Turley, have a different take. (The original USA Today rendition seems to be hidden behind a paywall, so I provided the Yahoo link.)

Biden commission on packing Supreme Court left liberals empty-handed. They won't accept it.

Quote:
...Despite being composed primarily of liberal members, the commission is now being attacked as a tool of the status quo. Ironically, much like the court itself, the commission is being declared invalid because it dared to reach conclusions different from these activists. Unlike on the court, activists apparently succeeded in getting two conservative members to resign because of the recommendations.

When the commission was formed, I wrote that it did not look like a serious effort to pack the court. Rather it looked like a standard “death by commission” move by President Joe Biden. The reason was not that it was too moderate but too liberal. If Biden seriously wanted to pack the court, this commission would hardly be credible with many Americans given the small number of members in the center or on the right. As the commission acknowledged, “A majority of the public does not support court expansion.”...

The “death by commission” tactic is a common substitute in Washington for actual political leadership. During the presidential campaign, Biden repeatedly refused to state whether he opposed packing the court. He said he would only answer the question after the election, a truly bizarre position that many in the news media then just shrugged off...

If the White House hoped that the commission would serve as a type of primal scream session to release rage, it didn't work...

What the commission did not want to address is the fundamental flaw in the court reform movement. Most of the calls to expand the court have been based on the view that the court is “broken” because it is reaching the wrong conclusions...

While the president is likely to promise to study the commission study, the calls for court packing are only likely to increase with this term as the court addresses major cases on abortion, free speech, gun rights and other issues. Biden cannot remain a pure pedestrian in this controversy.

It is not even clear that throwing the court under the bus would placate these activists...
While the noise from "internet progressives" should neither be entirely discounted nor pandered to, in effect, what Turley is saying is that "it ain't over yet" in terms of the pressure for 'reform' not having been successfully vented.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-18-2021, 2:53 PM
wpage's Avatar
wpage wpage is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,956
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Left is better at fudge packing then court packing.

They had their chance with Ruth Ginsberg. But she selfishly held on as leftist do and then died under Trumps watch and the rest is history.

Don't count on anyone retiring on the right side until the time is right.
__________________
God so loved the world He gave His only Son... Believe in Him and have everlasting life.
John 3:16

United Air Epic Fail Video ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u99Q7pNAjvg
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 7:44 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, 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

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical