Read The Forum Rules: We have a clear set of rules to keep the forum running smoothly. Click here to review them.

Post Reply 
U.S. Supreme Court, including Gorsuch nomination
Author Message
Rob Banks Offline
Chubby Chaser
**

Posts: 415
Joined: Oct 2016
Reputation: 8
Post: #26
RE: U.S. Supreme Court, including Gorsuch nomination
(02-10-2017 05:03 AM)stugatz Wrote:  What are the odds that this coming fight over the Executive Order ends up in front of a 5-4 court with Gorsuch and gets defeated anyway?

After Roberts joined the left on ObamaCare, I'm not going to rest easy until the court is 6-3 or 7-2.

The Dems will be fighting hard to delay Gorsuch confirmation until after the case regarding Trump's executive order has been heard by the Supreme Court.
02-10-2017 04:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Rob Banks's post:
Enoch
Hypno Offline
Alpha Male
****

Posts: 1,096
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 9
Post: #27
RE: U.S. Supreme Court, including Gorsuch nomination
(02-09-2017 04:46 PM)Rob Banks Wrote:  What do you guys think about Gorsuch and the 2nd amendment? I don't believe he has had any direct rulings on 2nd amendment cases.

its hard to know for sure but not particularly.

as you noted, there has been a minority view that says the second amendment is not some personal right. that is just sophistry to take away the right, as the court did long ago with the 10th Amendment (all rights not specifically conferred to the Feds are reserved by the States and the people).

I wouldn't assume Gorsuch is part of that camp. He might not vote to legalize fully automatics, but I also don't think his support of Garland means he wants to eliminate gun rights. Garland was a very qualified jurist who was made a political pawn by Obama and got Borked.
02-11-2017 10:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Rob Banks Offline
Chubby Chaser
**

Posts: 415
Joined: Oct 2016
Reputation: 8
Post: #28
RE: U.S. Supreme Court, including Gorsuch nomination
(02-10-2017 05:03 AM)stugatz Wrote:  What are the odds that this coming fight over the Executive Order ends up in front of a 5-4 court with Gorsuch and gets defeated anyway?

After Roberts joined the left on ObamaCare, I'm not going to rest easy until the court is 6-3 or 7-2.

Senate Dems, led by Cuck Schumer, will try and stall Gorsuch confirmation until after Supreme Court hears Trump's executive order case. The 4 liberal justices will obviously vote to uphold the 9th Circuit's decision, and that's all they need. A 4-4 tie affirms the lower court decision.

Trump might be wise not to appeal the recent 9th Circuit decision, and simply wait until after Gorsuch confirmation and issue a new EO. On the other hand, not appealing the 9th Circuit decision might set some kind of precedent againts issuing these types of executive orders.
(This post was last modified: 02-14-2017 09:29 AM by Rob Banks.)
02-14-2017 09:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Enoch Offline
Alpha Male
****

Posts: 1,473
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 11
Post: #29
RE: U.S. Supreme Court, including Gorsuch nomination
I think it is entirely possible we will not have a 9th Supreme Court justice until after the midterms.
02-14-2017 09:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Jean Valjean Offline
Banned

Posts: 497
Joined: Mar 2016
Post: #30
RE: U.S. Supreme Court, including Gorsuch nomination
(02-11-2017 10:51 AM)Hypno Wrote:  as you noted, there has been a minority view that says the second amendment is not some personal right. that is just sophistry to take away the right, as the court did long ago with the 10th Amendment (all rights not specifically conferred to the Feds are reserved by the States and the people).

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Second Amendment only protects the right of militiamen to bear arms. Can we then still argue that we have a constitutional right to a well-regulated militia, i.e. an armed and well-trained force composed of all able-bodied men of fighting age, and therefore any able-bodied man between 17 and 45 years of age still has the right to possess a firearm on that basis?

Looking at the rest of the Constitution, it seems the militia was to play an important role in the balance of power between the federal government and the states, with Article I, Section 8 providing that "Congress shall have the Power . . . To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Without a well-regulated militia, we are left with just the Army and Navy for protection, whose training and officer selection are directed by the President rather than the states, potentially putting in jeopardy the security of a free state, in violation of the Second Amendment.
(This post was last modified: 02-14-2017 10:10 AM by Jean Valjean.)
02-14-2017 10:07 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Hypno Offline
Alpha Male
****

Posts: 1,096
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 9
Post: #31
RE: U.S. Supreme Court, including Gorsuch nomination
(02-14-2017 09:56 AM)Enoch Wrote:  I think it is entirely possible we will not have a 9th Supreme Court justice until after the midterms.

while that is possible, I view it as unlikely.

Trump packing the court with a 10th and 11th justice are more likely than your scenario, although in my view very unlikely.
02-14-2017 10:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Hypno Offline
Alpha Male
****

Posts: 1,096
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 9
Post: #32
RE: U.S. Supreme Court, including Gorsuch nomination
(02-14-2017 10:07 AM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  
(02-11-2017 10:51 AM)Hypno Wrote:  as you noted, there has been a minority view that says the second amendment is not some personal right. that is just sophistry to take away the right, as the court did long ago with the 10th Amendment (all rights not specifically conferred to the Feds are reserved by the States and the people).

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Second Amendment only protects the right of militiamen to bear arms. Can we then still argue that we have a constitutional right to a well-regulated militia . . .

sure you can argue whatever you want. I would even agree with you. But your argument and reality may be two different things.

the Constitution supports a lot of arguments that don't comport with reality. Said differently, our government operates very differently from the way it was intended and the way the Constitution says it should.

so how the court interprets the 2nd amendment is critical to your actual gun rights.

as it pertains to militias, each state has the national guard which is effectively controlled by the Feds. so it they say there is no individual right, and only a state right, then it effectively means there is no right at all.
02-14-2017 10:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Jean Valjean Offline
Banned

Posts: 497
Joined: Mar 2016
Post: #33
RE: U.S. Supreme Court, including Gorsuch nomination
(02-14-2017 10:54 AM)Hypno Wrote:  
(02-14-2017 10:07 AM)Jean Valjean Wrote:  
(02-11-2017 10:51 AM)Hypno Wrote:  as you noted, there has been a minority view that says the second amendment is not some personal right. that is just sophistry to take away the right, as the court did long ago with the 10th Amendment (all rights not specifically conferred to the Feds are reserved by the States and the people).

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Second Amendment only protects the right of militiamen to bear arms. Can we then still argue that we have a constitutional right to a well-regulated militia . . .

sure you can argue whatever you want. I would even agree with you. But your argument and reality may be two different things.

the Constitution supports a lot of arguments that don't comport with reality. Said differently, our government operates very differently from the way it was intended and the way the Constitution says it should.

so how the court interprets the 2nd amendment is critical to your actual gun rights.

as it pertains to militias, each state has the national guard which is effectively controlled by the Feds. so it they say there is no individual right, and only a state right, then it effectively means there is no right at all.

Courts are only one venue for arguing constitutional rights, though. One can also run for Congress or U.S. President on a platform calling for respect for Second Amendment rights, and point out that it's the sworn duty of those officeholders to defend those rights. Or one can write letters to the editor calling out politicians who put on the bench judges who are weak on Second Amendment issues.

Once popular opinion has gone in a certain direction, the courts may take notice, because they are always concerned with maintaining legitimacy in the public eye, since even though they serve lifetime terms, the judiciary's independence (and the primacy role in constitutional interpretation) is always at risk of being curtailed by the more powerful political branches if it starts making decisions that provoke too much public outcry. Also, influencing politicians (by challenging them in the primaries, or by launching independent or third party campaigns whose ideas they end up copying) can influence which jurists they choose to put on the bench. If it's an issue that a lot of people are talking about, then politicians will consider potential nominees' views on that issue, because they know the voters could hold them accountable for a bad pick. For example, arguably, Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees was what made the difference in getting mainstream Republicans to vote for him, and his desire to get re-elected helped motivate him to stick to that list and choose Gorsuch.
(This post was last modified: 02-14-2017 11:35 AM by Jean Valjean.)
02-14-2017 11:31 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Analysis of Virginia's 2017 election (including alt-right candidate Corey Stewart) Jean Valjean 25 9,035 08-31-2017 10:44 AM
Last Post: Samseau
  Polish lawmakers pass controversial Supreme Court bill RaccoonFace 37 8,149 08-20-2017 09:08 AM
Last Post: RaccoonFace
  Slate: Gorsuch is everything liberals feared - and more RaccoonFace 35 10,359 07-07-2017 06:37 PM
Last Post: Truth Teller

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | RooshV.com | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication