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
  #921  
Old 11-26-2019, 3:57 PM
Rcjackrabbit Rcjackrabbit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 548
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
Every time there is an update in this thread I am hoping for good news. When will the witch die?
The problem is that Satan doesn't want her back yet.
Reply With Quote
  #922  
Old 11-26-2019, 8:10 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County, Idaho
Posts: 2,046
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Jah View Post
No way is she stepping down while Trump is in office. She thinks she can last until 2024.
While I will not wish her harm, lasting until 2024 will take some luck. Even then, can she last until beyond a 2024-2032 Pence presidency and a 2032 to 2040 Trump Jr. presidency? I doubt it. With luck, I will see this come to pass.

Last edited by BAJ475; 11-26-2019 at 8:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #923  
Old 11-27-2019, 8:01 AM
Capt.Dunsel Capt.Dunsel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: On Someones Ignore List
Posts: 1,059
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rcjackrabbit View Post
The problem is that Satan doesn't want her back yet.
He is afraid she will take over
__________________
Let those without fault cast the first stone .

Bweise says "I have to say the situation was not at all helped by 22 yr old former Airsoft douches who kept touting here, "But possession is not illegal!" "

Those that live in glass houses should not throw stones , cause I got a sling shot

Fighting on the internet is like being in the special Olympics , everybody wins but your still retarded.
Reply With Quote
  #924  
Old 11-29-2019, 9:46 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,420
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Would Republicans Follow Their Garland Rule for the Court in 2020?

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s health scare raised the question of how the Senate would handle a high court vacancy in a presidential election year.
More at: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/u...t-garland.html

Bottom line IMO: Dems are ramming Impeachment so that come Jan 01, Trump will be both Impeached and in an election year to trash both him and lower Repub candidates if "an opening" comes to the Court and they try to fill it. It could be that this is the reason Pelosi flipped awhile ago and now supports impeachment -- to have two things to use against Trump & Mitch if an opening should come.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 11-29-2019 at 9:53 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #925  
Old 11-29-2019, 10:24 PM
CessnaDriver's Avatar
CessnaDriver CessnaDriver is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 8,455
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Obozo was termed out.
Trump is not and most of the country accepts he is very likely to be re-elected.
__________________
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
  #926  
Old 11-29-2019, 10:29 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,420
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CessnaDriver View Post
Obozo was termed out.
Trump is not and most of the country accepts he is very likely to be re-elected.
To put it another way: Obama was "lame duck" for the entire election year whereas Trump will only be "lame duck" after the Nov election if he loses reelection.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #927  
Old 11-29-2019, 11:13 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 676
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
More at: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/u...t-garland.html

Bottom line IMO: Dems are ramming Impeachment so that come Jan 01, Trump will be both Impeached and in an election year to trash both him and lower Repub candidates if "an opening" comes to the Court and they try to fill it. It could be that this is the reason Pelosi flipped awhile ago and now supports impeachment -- to have two things to use against Trump & Mitch if an opening should come.
And Senate will just roll over and grant their wish? Nope. They will acquit Trump while SCOTUS nominee goes through interviews and then confirm the nominee.
While I will be thoroughly enjoying gnashing of teeth and wringing of wrists around me. Then I will drink for Trump re-election.
Reply With Quote
  #928  
Old 11-30-2019, 7:57 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,420
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

THE HILL pretty much confirming what I wrote above.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...e-court-battle

How I wish Thomas would step down immediately next summer, while the GOP controls both the White House and Senate. Otherwise, in 2 years, he may well be in the situation RBG is in, where he's tired and wants to retire, but dares not.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif

Last edited by Paladin; 12-01-2019 at 9:48 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #929  
Old 12-01-2019, 8:19 AM
Apocalypsenerd's Avatar
Apocalypsenerd Apocalypsenerd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oceanside, CA
Posts: 932
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

My prediction is that RBG leaves the court sometime next year. Dems immediately impeach to stall a new appointment. Trump wins in the Senate and confirms a new Justice, just in time to give him an election boost.
__________________
Let me handle your property needs and I will donate 10% of the brokerage total commission to CG.
Buy or sell a home.
Property management including vacation rentals.
We can help with loans and refi's. 10% of all commissions will be donated to CG.

Serving the greater San Diego area.

Aaron Ross - BRE #01865640
CA Broker
Reply With Quote
  #930  
Old 12-01-2019, 8:32 AM
gumby gumby is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Westminster, Orange County
Posts: 2,007
iTrader: 86 / 100%
Default

A likely scenario.
Reply With Quote
  #931  
Old 12-01-2019, 8:43 AM
pgg pgg is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 314
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
THE HILL pretty much confirming what I wrote above.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...e-court-battle

How I wish Thomas would step down immediately, while the GOP controls both the White House and Senate. Otherwise, in 2 years, he may well be in the situation RBG is in, where he's tired and wants to resign, but dare not.
You really want Thomas to step down now, on the eve of arguments in NYSPRA vs NYC? With a ruling in that case due in June 2020?

As for me, I'd rather read a majority opinion in that case written by Thomas.

If he wants to strategically step down the day after SCOTUS releases a ruling establishing strict scrutiny and all sorts of other niceness, OK.
Reply With Quote
  #932  
Old 12-01-2019, 9:50 AM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,420
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pgg View Post
You really want Thomas to step down now, on the eve of arguments in NYSPRA vs NYC? With a ruling in that case due in June 2020?

As for me, I'd rather read a majority opinion in that case written by Thomas.

If he wants to strategically step down the day after SCOTUS releases a ruling establishing strict scrutiny and all sorts of other niceness, OK.
Yeah, you're right. I had been hoping Thomas would retire last summer for at least a year prior and just hadn't "updated" my thinking on the subject. Now it's too late -- he should stay until summer. I've edited my post above.
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #933  
Old 12-01-2019, 11:32 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 676
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin View Post
THE HILL pretty much confirming what I wrote above.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...e-court-battle

How I wish Thomas would step down immediately next summer, while the GOP controls both the White House and Senate. Otherwise, in 2 years, he may well be in the situation RBG is in, where he's tired and wants to retire, but dares not.
Liberals are trying to wish that into reality. By throwing assertions that public confidence in Trump is low. Which is hogwash.
Reply With Quote
  #934  
Old 12-02-2019, 5:33 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,420
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Please discuss the NYSRPA case in the NYSRPA case’s thread.
Reply With Quote
  #935  
Old 12-02-2019, 5:37 PM
CaliforniaLiberal's Avatar
CaliforniaLiberal CaliforniaLiberal is offline
#1 Bull Goose Loony
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 4,571
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

I need some accurate info here.

I'm hearing all sorts of contradictory stuff about when and under what conditions the President is allowed and not allowed to nominate replacement Justices for SCOTUS.

What is the Senate's obligation to consider the qualifications of these proposed Justices?

How have these matters been carried out over the last 200 years?

What is the actual law regarding SCOTUS nominations?
__________________
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
  #936  
Old 12-02-2019, 7:36 PM
homelessdude homelessdude is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: inland empire
Posts: 1,017
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Your kidding right. 4571 posts and you don't know how SC justices are confirmed. The senate needs 51 votes to confirm a new justice. The president nominates a new one after one of the nine sitting judges retires or dies. The senate confirms him/her with a vote of 51. What exactly are you hearing?
Reply With Quote
  #937  
Old 12-02-2019, 7:56 PM
dfletcher's Avatar
dfletcher dfletcher is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 13,292
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliforniaLiberal View Post
I need some accurate info here.

I'm hearing all sorts of contradictory stuff about when and under what conditions the President is allowed and not allowed to nominate replacement Justices for SCOTUS.

What is the Senate's obligation to consider the qualifications of these proposed Justices?

How have these matters been carried out over the last 200 years?

What is the actual law regarding SCOTUS nominations?
There are no qualifications to be nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court. Several Justices have neither attended nor been graduated from law school. Some passed their bar by "reading law" as was a common practice.

The President nominates whenever there is a vacancy on the court. He may also nominate an Associate Justice to replace a Chief Justice when that position becomes vacant. Recall that George Bush (43) did just that when Chief Justice Rehnquist died after O'Conner retired.

The Senate does "advise and consent" which is expressed by voting to confirm or decline to confirm. There is no requirement for public hearings. Those are a fairly recent occurrence. The number of votes required to confirm has changed, that door was opened by former Senate Majority Leader Reid. It went from 60 votes to 50, about 6 years ago IIRC.

One aspect of the process little discussed is that after nomination by the President and confirmation comes appointment. A President could after Senate confirmation, decline to appoint his nominee. Hasn't happened so far as I know, but it's possible that information learned during the confirmation process could cause a President to change his mind and decline to appoint.

Last edited by dfletcher; 12-02-2019 at 8:02 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #938  
Old 12-02-2019, 8:00 PM
WingDings's Avatar
WingDings WingDings is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: OC / LA
Posts: 537
iTrader: 96 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by homelessdude View Post
Your kidding right. 4571 posts and you don't know how SC justices are confirmed. The senate needs 51 votes to confirm a new justice. The president nominates a new one after one of the nine sitting judges retires or dies. The senate confirms him/her with a vote of 51. What exactly are you hearing?
I read it as him being confused as to “when” a new justice can be nominated and confirmed or—in other words—whether or not there is precedent for lame duck nominations and confirmations.

If I read that correctly, the answer would be that Senatorial courtesy applies and custom—not law—generally wins out. No confirmation in the last year of a Presidential (*edit: “lame duck”) term.

If I’m wrong, well...I’d point him to your post...or Article II, Section II of the instruction manual itself.

Last edited by WingDings; 12-03-2019 at 2:22 AM.. Reason: Clarifying For Wireless
Reply With Quote
  #939  
Old 12-02-2019, 8:09 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,948
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WingDings View Post
I read it as him being confused as to “when” a new justice can be nominated and confirmed or—in other words—whether or not there is precedent for lame duck nominations and confirmations.

If I read that correctly, the answer would be that Senatorial courtesy applies and custom—not law—generally wins out. No confirmation in the last year of a Presidential term.

If I’m wrong, well...I’d point him to your post...or Article II, Section II of the instruction manual itself.
The custom is that if the president is a lame duck and the senate majority is different than the president, they wait until after the election. Neither of those are the case currently. The left claiming "no judges in an election year because you said so", is not what the republicans said. At all. It's a deliberate generalization and obscuring the details because most of the public doesn't know better.

The only rules that matter about nominating a supreme court judge are in the constitution. They can be appointed and approved at any time. Before or after an election. A new senate is sworn in in January, so theoretically a new president could pull a nomination or the nominee might not make it through the "old senate" before the new one is sworn in, and the new senate could be less favorable to that nominee.
Reply With Quote
  #940  
Old 12-02-2019, 8:16 PM
Librarian's Avatar
Librarian Librarian is offline
Administrator
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cottage Grove, OR
Posts: 39,256
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 6
Default

Gentle Members, please remember this thread is not for discussing any cases - individual cases usually get their own threads, so 19 posts just moved to the NYSRPA thread.
__________________
No one will really understand politics until they understand that politicians are not trying to solve our problems. They are trying to solve their own problems - of which getting elected and re-elected are number one and number two. Whatever is number three is far behind.
- Thomas Sowell
I've been saying that for years ...

There is no value at all complaining or analyzing or reading tea leaves to decide what these bills really mean or actually do; any bill with a chance to pass will be bad for gun owners.

The details only count after the Governor signs the bills.


Gregg Easterbrook’s “Law of Doomsaying”: Predict catastrophe no later than ten years hence but no sooner than five years away — soon enough to terrify people but distant enough that they will not remember that you were wrong.


Not a lawyer, just Some Guy On The Interwebs.


Reply With Quote
  #941  
Old 12-03-2019, 1:07 AM
scbauer's Avatar
scbauer scbauer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 909
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

Worth pointing out, as others may have, that in NYSRPA, RBG was present and asking questions today (well, yesterday since it’s late... 12/2/19).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #942  
Old 12-03-2019, 9:31 AM
Sputnik's Avatar
Sputnik Sputnik is offline
Shiny
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: East Bay
Posts: 1,616
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scbauer View Post
Worth pointing out, as others may have, that in NYSRPA, RBG was present and asking questions today (well, yesterday since it’s late... 12/2/19).
Yes, and she seems to have a better grasp of the question involved than Sotomayor who is many years junior. She may be frail but hasn't lost her faculties.
Reply With Quote
  #943  
Old 12-03-2019, 8:08 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 676
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Sotomayor is such a disgrace. Imagine of Clinton appointed two more of it by now.
Reply With Quote
  #944  
Old 12-04-2019, 6:52 PM
abinsinia's Avatar
abinsinia abinsinia is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 675
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
“Any scenario where an impeached president is trying to jam through a Supreme Court pick in an election year, in direct defiance of the precedent Mitch McConnell set with Merrick Garland in 2016, would rightly spark a war,” said Brian Fallon, the head of Demand Justice, a progressive group formed in response to the Republican blockade of Judge Garland.

....

“While there are few options we would have to stop that nominee before the election, my hope is it would mobilize Democrats at the polls to insist on restoring balance to the court,” Mr. Coons said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/u...t-garland.html
Reply With Quote
  #945  
Old 12-04-2019, 7:52 PM
Paladin's Avatar
Paladin Paladin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFBA
Posts: 9,420
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

(1) Trump, like all Americans, is "innocent until proven guilty."

(2) The Biden Rule applies only to "lame duck" presidents. That won't apply to Trump under after the Nov election and if and only if he is not re-elected. (That's why they're also pushing to get rid of the electoral college.)
__________________
Never mistake being delusional for being optimistic.

230+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives.

KnifeRights.org/images/KRbanner_468x60-1.gif
Reply With Quote
  #946  
Old 12-04-2019, 8:43 PM
Spaffo's Avatar
Spaffo Spaffo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 521
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Regarding RBG, I know what most of us want for Christmas.
Reply With Quote
  #947  
Old 12-04-2019, 11:23 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 676
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abinsinia View Post
What would they fight with?
Reply With Quote
  #948  
Old 12-05-2019, 10:38 AM
Californio Californio is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 3,980
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Looking at the dog and pony show yesterday.

Trump may not be the best President but consider that Prof. Karlan would probably be a RBG replacement if he wasn't, Pray for America.
__________________
"The California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law." - U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez
Reply With Quote
  #949  
Old 12-05-2019, 10:46 AM
Spaffo's Avatar
Spaffo Spaffo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 521
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Trump's judicial appointments alone make him a success as a President, let alone his other accomplishments.
Reply With Quote
  #950  
Old 12-05-2019, 11:26 AM
003 003 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,962
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaffo View Post
Trump's judicial appointments alone make him a success as a President, let alone his other accomplishments.
Amen - - - Well said!!!
Reply With Quote
  #951  
Old 12-05-2019, 1:24 PM
CalAlumnus's Avatar
CalAlumnus CalAlumnus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 772
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WingDings View Post
I read it as him being confused as to “when” a new justice can be nominated and confirmed or—in other words—whether or not there is precedent for lame duck nominations and confirmations.

If I read that correctly, the answer would be that Senatorial courtesy applies and custom—not law—generally wins out. No confirmation in the last year of a Presidential (*edit: “lame duck”) term.

If I’m wrong, well...I’d point him to your post...or Article II, Section II of the instruction manual itself.
As I understand the Constitution, it’s pretty simple: the President has the power of appointment, “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.”

Thus, the Senate is free to grant it’s consent, or not. It is free to hold hearings and grant consent, or not. It is free to not hold hearings and grant consent, or not.

You’re right that a lot of what we see today are customs, not constitutional requirements.
Reply With Quote
  #952  
Old 12-05-2019, 9:06 PM
mshill's Avatar
mshill mshill is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 3,234
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

With the rush to draw up articles of impeachment by Pelosi, RGBs prognosis must not be good. They have to impeach the President so they can say that the next appointment to SCOTUS is illegitimate.
__________________
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
  #953  
Old 12-05-2019, 10:36 PM
wireless's Avatar
wireless wireless is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,948
iTrader: 31 / 100%
Default

They can say whatever the **** they want. There's nothing in the constitution that prevents Trump from nominating a SCOTUS judge if he is in an impeachment process or trial in the senate. Not to mention if Trump didn't appoint a SCOTUS judge under those circumstances, he would lose a substantial amount of his base in key states. The "illegitimate" appointment argument doesn't hold any water and has zero political capital with anyone but democrats.
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 6:11 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.