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 07-19-2020, 3:20 PM
Fedora Fedora is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 55
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
Roberts has always indicated that he is concerned with the public's perception of the Court; particularly as a 'neutral' arbiter.
I'd be happier it the "neutral" Supreme Court were replaced with one heavily biased towards the Constitution.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-19-2020, 4:01 PM
robertfchew robertfchew is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 127
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by homelessdude View Post
It all comes down to the upcoming election. If you don't want to watch whats left of the Bill of Rights disappear VOTE and contribute if you can.

I donate small amounts because I don't have tons of money for political campaigns and all they do is start hounding you more.

Last edited by robertfchew; 07-19-2020 at 4:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-19-2020, 6:18 PM
pacrat pacrat is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Socialist Republic of SoCal
Posts: 7,208
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia

Roberts has always indicated that he is concerned with the public's perception of the Court; particularly as a 'neutral' arbiter.
Major problem being, that he IS NOT A NEUTRAL ARBITER, of the ORIGINAL INTENT of the CONSTITUTION, as written. Which is what the job of Chief Justice entails.

He has set himself up as Neutral Arbiter of PUBLIC OPINION.

The more involved the LEFTISTS are in both MEDIA and POLITICS. The more he leans away from ORIGINAL INTENT. And ever farther to the LEFT.

The HARDER the LEFTIST WINDS blow. The more he leans to the LEFT. He has become nothing but a POLITICAL WILLOW TREE.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-19-2020, 6:54 PM
gumby gumby is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Westminster, Orange County
Posts: 2,161
iTrader: 88 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Major problem being, that he IS NOT A NEUTRAL ARBITER, of the ORIGINAL INTENT of the CONSTITUTION, as written. Which is what the job of Chief Justice entails.

He has set himself up as Neutral Arbiter of PUBLIC OPINION.

The more involved the LEFTISTS are in both MEDIA and POLITICS. The more he leans away from ORIGINAL INTENT. And ever farther to the LEFT.

The HARDER the LEFTIST WINDS blow. The more he leans to the LEFT. He has become nothing but a POLITICAL WILLOW TREE.
So true!!!
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-19-2020, 7:17 PM
lmcc0072 lmcc0072 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: NorCal
Posts: 110
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The War Wagon View Post
Saw that. We better get a PRIMO 2-A judge to replace Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg when she molds away!
If RBG dies before the election the Dems are going to pull a “Weekend at Bernie’s” with her. There’s no way that the Libs are going to “allow” Trump to nominate another SCJ. I think that the left’s main reason for trying so hard to get rid of Trump. They could easily wait 4 1/2 years for Trump to term out, but they’re desperate to get him now.

Impeachment, Covid, tax returns, Russian interference, Russian bounties, murder hornets, Covid II, etc...

With national mail in ballots, voter fraud, fake news, etc... I think Trump still wins in November and I think that they try to assassinate him or go for Impeachment II soon after.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-20-2020, 12:35 AM
Uncivil Engineer Uncivil Engineer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 772
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lmcc0072 View Post
If RBG dies before the election the Dems are going to pull a “Weekend at Bernie’s” with her. There’s no way that the Libs are going to “allow” Trump to nominate another SCJ. I think that the left’s main reason for trying so hard to get rid of Trump. They could easily wait 4 1/2 years for Trump to term out, but they’re desperate to get him now.



Impeachment, Covid, tax returns, Russian interference, Russian bounties, murder hornets, Covid II, etc...



With national mail in ballots, voter fraud, fake news, etc... I think Trump still wins in November and I think that they try to assassinate him or go for Impeachment II soon after.
Don't assume they are rational. Sure they would list their minds of RBG kicked but I'm not sure the Senate would be able to over come a filibuster I'm sure we would see. All we would hear about it is how Obama couldn't replace Scalia.


I'm sure they were worried about Trump putting more judges on the bench but I doubt most get that far.

They simply hate him. They were promised a win by Hillery and the Media, they lost and can't accept it. They hate him so much they can't even support him when he goes against long standing Republican stances. So ending the way and bring back the troops, nope. End free trade and impose tariffs to support manufacturing jobs, nope they hate that. Trump could sign medicare for all and the Democrats would find a reason to hate him more.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-20-2020, 6:52 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,801
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedora View Post
I'd be happier it the "neutral" Supreme Court were replaced with one heavily biased towards the Constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Major problem being, that he IS NOT A NEUTRAL ARBITER, of the ORIGINAL INTENT of the CONSTITUTION, as written. Which is what the job of Chief Justice entails.

He has set himself up as Neutral Arbiter of PUBLIC OPINION.

The more involved the LEFTISTS are in both MEDIA and POLITICS. The more he leans away from ORIGINAL INTENT. And ever farther to the LEFT.

The HARDER the LEFTIST WINDS blow. The more he leans to the LEFT. He has become nothing but a POLITICAL WILLOW TREE.
Which is why you should be taking note of my next sentence after the line you are quoting from me...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
The problem is that virtually nothing he's done in that vein has appeared to create a sense of neutrality or give him the preponderance of 'majority' (6-3 or better) decisions he expressed a desire for vs. a series of 5-4 'partisan' appearing decisions.
Alternatively, rather than parsing a single sentence from a month old quote, you could take notice of what I said just a few days ago on another thread...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
But, the gist of what I said is in that quote; i.e., that he is deciding cases, not by calling balls and strikes, but based on "the public's view of the Court" as his primary criterion. Unfortunately, he has made it publicly clear that such is a high priority for him as Chief Justice. Worse. It's a far cry from being a neutral arbiter and claiming that the Court is not where social policy should be set. As I said, put another way, he's selecting winners and losers in a manner that a judge, let alone a Supreme Court Justice, isn't supposed to.
As I also noted in that thread, claiming that Roberts is moving to the Left may be something of a misnomer. Roberts has said, very clearly, that he wants fewer 5-4 decisions. It is pretty clear he is working in that direction. That doesn't, of necessity, mean he's 'turned to the Left' so much as it may mean he's deciding cases, not on the law or the Constitution, but based on 'social policy' and/or whichever faction seems to hold 'sway' in a given case; something he said was not the role of the Court. That doesn't mean he's 'turned to the Left' so much as it suggests that the four, Liberal Justices present an united front and the four, "Conservative" Justices appear more 'divided.'

I'm not even completely certain Roberts' ideology is a Left/Right one so much as it is, for lack of better term, more aligned with 'public perception' insofar as making the Court 'appear neutral' by arbitrarily(?) ensuring that the decisions are 'balanced' or, more importantly, perceived as such. I'm not the only one which holds a suspicion that he's been playing to that in a way which is, in some respects, 'extralegal' in its overall arc, even if technically legal vis a vis the rationale proffered in the decision(s). (See the post I just linked to.) Roberts (and others on the Court, including Gorsuch) has made it publicly plain that the current SCOTUS does not perceive its role as setting or establishing social policy and such should be left to the Legislature. Many, including myself, are concerned that such a public sentiment represents an abandonment of one of the Court's fundamental roles in favor of creating a public perception of 'steady as she goes.' Others argue that it is Roberts' more subtle (slow moving) approach to moving the Court to the Right; something which chafes given the increasingly ideological selection of Justices. Still others see it as Roberts moving Left or to the Center.

When Roberts and Gorsuch state that the Legislature is the proper venue for setting social policy, there is a concern in that virtually any, Legislative action directed toward "social policy," by definition, means an impact on fundamental rights. The Legislature (and the Executive Branch) are reactive bodies insofar as public/political controversies, perceived 'majorities,' or the whims, waves, and vagaries of public sentiment. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the 'check and balance' on that insofar as determining what is Constitutional and what is not. If the overriding concern is public perception of the Court, then you risk being another 'reactive body' rather than a 'neutral arbiter.' In a sense, it's exactly what we're talking about when debating 'originalism/original intent/textualism' vs. 'living constitutionalism.'

There's more in those posts and I'm repeating myself. So...
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-20-2020, 2:40 PM
MountainLion's Avatar
MountainLion MountainLion is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Tarzana
Posts: 100
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pacrat View Post
Major problem being, that he IS NOT A NEUTRAL ARBITER, of the ORIGINAL INTENT of the CONSTITUTION, as written. Which is what the job of Chief Justice entails.
The job of the Supreme Court is to decide cases. Cases are decided based on facts and on the law. So the law is only a part of what his job entails. Furthermore, interpreting the law has many sources. The black letter of the law, the understanding of the language of the law, the original intent of the law, and quite a few other sources. Claiming that the Supreme Court is only about the "original intent of the constitution" ignores 90% of 95% of what goes into court decisions. The Supreme Court is considerably more than a photocopy machine for records of the intent of the framers, such as the federalist papers or their letters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncivil Engineer View Post
Don't assume they are rational. Sure they would list their minds of RBG kicked but I'm not sure the Senate would be able to over come a filibuster I'm sure we would see.
Speaking of the republican senators, we have to remember that there is an election coming up in a few months. Given the polarization of the electorate, and the likely turnout, the outcome of the election is quite uncertain, and in particular it is unlikely to be a republican landslide. Quite a few of those republican senators are vulnerable right now. If they ram through a unpopular Supreme Court nominee in the next few months, that might be the end of their political career, and of the republican majority in the senate. In particular if it gets turned into a media spectacle, with blue slips and filibusters. My reading of the tea leaves is: If the appointment of a justice were to become necessary, it would be deferred until after the election.
__________________
meow
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-21-2020, 7:29 PM
Noble Cause Noble Cause is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: California
Posts: 2,589
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Snicker View Post
Imagine if gun owners and 2nd Amend supporters could organize protests half the size of BLM. unfortunately 2A community just relies on the courts......
Astroturfing

Many of these events are Planned and Organized by the Left,
supported and paid for with unlimited amounts of cash from the
likes of Soros, Bloomberg, and others of the Billionaire Elites.

Astroturfing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participants. It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source's financial connection. The term astroturfing is derived from AstroTurf, a brand of synthetic carpeting designed to resemble natural grass, as a play on the word "grassroots". The implication behind the use of the term is that instead of a "true" or "natural" grassroots effort behind the activity in question, there is a "fake" or "artificial" appearance of support.

Pro-2A supporters don't have that type of deep pockets monetary
support and professional organization, so our events really are
"grass roots" sporadic events.

Without the endless supplies of cash and professional help,
provided by Anti-2A Billionaires, the "Gun Control" movement
would cease to exist.


Noble
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-22-2020, 2:36 PM
Sousuke Sousuke is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,385
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by robertkjjj View Post
Roberts infuriates me more and more each year.
Such a disappointment.
He has basically taken it upon himself to "save" the Judicial branch (in his view).

His decisions are coated in conservatism so to speak, but he ties himself in knots to try to justify the liberal opinion.
__________________
Wearing a mask during a pandemic is an IQ test. If you aren't wearing one then you are failing - Karl Kasarda @ InrangeTV
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 07-23-2020, 2:06 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,879
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sousuke View Post
He has basically taken it upon himself to "save" the Judicial branch (in his view).

His decisions are coated in conservatism so to speak, but he ties himself in knots to try to justify the liberal opinion.
John Roberts is a lace curtains Irish Catholic whose morality is set by the prevailing culture he is in, as opposed to allowing his church to guide his decisions.

The culture and public morality is liberal, so of course he justifies whatever liberalism has to say, if only serving a slight pushback to help the liberals sharpen their arguments so their second bite at the apple is better argued and more successsful.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 07-23-2020, 3:58 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 1,801
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sousuke View Post
He has basically taken it upon himself to "save" the Judicial branch (in his view).

His decisions are coated in conservatism so to speak, but he ties himself in knots to try to justify the liberal opinion.
Succinct and accurate.

Unfortunately, it's not accomplishing what he's, ostensibly, attempting to do. It is making the Court appear even more arbitrary and capricious. Worse. The uncertainty is putting a 'hold' on cases which need to be addressed to relieve infringements on rights; more than just those protected by the 2nd Amendment.

If he's hoping to stem the tide of public opinion which the likes of Schumer would use to enlarge and stack SCOTUS should Democrats regain one-party Government in D.C., it's a poorly conceived strategy. As we've now seen amply demonstrated, whatever is given or given up will never be 'enough' and they will only want and take more.

If he's hoping to buy time for more 'Conservative' or 'Originalist' Justices to be appointed, then it is, perceptibly, almost a Don Quixote-esque fight against modern history. While such may be necessary to restoring a more 'balanced' Court overall, given the divisions we now have in the country, it is unlikely we will see a 'balanced' or even 'favorable' public view of the Court. One 'side' or the other will, likely, always be inflamed over the decisions made and blame SCOTUS for the result.

My primary concern is precisely what you allude to; i.e., that he is using 'extralegal' means to create a perceived balance in the decisions being posted. That's not a precedent I want to see become a 'standard' for SCOTUS. While we may be, currently, aggrieved over his tying himself in knots to support the majority on the "Liberal" cases, it would be just as bad for, say, a zealous, traditional Catholic to overturn Roe v. Wade based on 'extralegal' reasoning and means.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 07-23-2020, 4:06 PM
not-fishing's Avatar
not-fishing not-fishing is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Folsom next to Dyke 8 launch
Posts: 2,043
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riderr View Post
The judicial system has become a bitter joke. It takes decades to consider cases, while the civil rights (not just 2A) are being infringed. The existing SCOTUS decisions are getting widely ignored by the lower courts. What's the purpose of such a dysfunctional judicial system?
Function?

To keep the unwashed masses from taking up arms and changing the Government.
__________________
Spreading the WORD according to COLT. and Smith, Wesson, Ruger, HK, Sig, High Standard, Browning
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 07-23-2020, 4:55 PM
lowimpactuser lowimpactuser is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,879
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by riderr View Post
The judicial system has become a bitter joke. It takes decades to consider cases, while the civil rights (not just 2A) are being infringed. The existing SCOTUS decisions are getting widely ignored by the lower courts. What's the purpose of such a dysfunctional judicial system?
To be the stamp of public morality and to create delay actions or "temporary" resolutions that have the effect of pushing public morality in a way that reinforces their "moderate" decisions, while dressing up their political acts in the name of "due process" triumphing over justice.
__________________
KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 07-31-2020, 11:12 AM
Murder's Avatar
Murder Murder is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Posts: 32
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noble Cause View Post
And then we have the Raving Lunatics of Gun Control (Democrats)
Threatening to "Restructure" SCOTUS:

If they try to pull that ****, they need to get domed.
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 9:13 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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 2002-2020, 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.
Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Tactical Gear Military Boots 5.11 Tactical