PDA

View Full Version : For those away from the news the last week...


cpd109
August 09, 2010, 06:35
Kagen is now a justice. So what you ask? Well, the last major gun rulings from USSC have been 5 to 4. They will contine that way now too, expect it will not go our way.

http://www.examiner.com/x-2581-St-Louis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m8d7-Swearingin-of-Justice-Kagan-underlines-need-to-not-count-on-Supreme-Court-to-uphold-gun-rights

What will be the next case for them? With Sotomayo and Kagen recenlty appointed, Barry has the USSC stacked in his favor no matter what.

What? Me a pessimist? Nope, a realist.

kfranz
August 09, 2010, 08:08
I hate to crap on your pessimism parade, but Kagan replaced Justice Stevens, who was no friend of the 2nd amendment. Her appointment would not have changed the 5-4 split on Heller or McDonald as Stevens was one of the 4 that dissented. Kagan may be a pinko, but she replaces a pinko, so no gain for the President in that regard.

martin35
August 09, 2010, 11:05
The time to worry is when your bath attendants ask you to hold some onions and carrots.

cpd109
August 09, 2010, 11:56
Originally posted by kfranz
I hate to crap on your pessimism parade, but Kagan replaced Justice Stevens, who was no friend of the 2nd amendment. Her appointment would not have changed the 5-4 split on Heller or McDonald as Stevens was one of the 4 that dissented. Kagan may be a pinko, but she replaces a pinko, so no gain for the President in that regard.

It's a crappy parade anyway. Who is the swing vote?

Edit- BTW, pessimists are the happiest people as I have just demonstrated.

If an optimist is right, it was the outcome expected. If they are wrong, it's a sad outcome.

If an optimist is right, the outcome was expected (and possibly planned for.) If they were wrong, it's a happy day.

Goin' back under my rock now.

Martin, I will be looking for the onion and carrot handouts, potatos too. (LOL)

tuck0411
August 09, 2010, 12:06
Originally posted by kfranz
I hate to crap on your pessimism parade, but Kagan replaced Justice Stevens, who was no friend of the 2nd amendment. Her appointment would not have changed the 5-4 split on Heller or McDonald as Stevens was one of the 4 that dissented. Kagan may be a pinko, but she replaces a pinko, so no gain for the President in that regard.

No gain other than we'll now have two guaranteed pinko votes for the next 30 years or so instead of just a few.

martin35
August 09, 2010, 12:07
Martin, I will be looking for the onion and carrot handouts, potatos too.
We don't call'm handouts anymore we call'm stimulus.

V guy
August 09, 2010, 12:50
Can a civil right be taken away? Libs claim that there is a basic civil right for gay marriage.

Once constitutional civil right has been established, because it predated the constitution, it is because it always existed.


I submit that if a future lib court decided to that the 2nd amendment was no longer an individual right, as guaranteed by the BOR, that the cow would jump over the moon.

Texas Jaguar
August 09, 2010, 13:18
The Supreme Court legalized abortion on the constitutionally (?) guarnteed right of privacy. My copy of the Constitution doesn't say anything about a Right to privacy at least as how it relates to the life or death of a fetus.

A bit of a stretch you ask? SOP for progressives ie liberals. "The Constitution is a living breathing document" the liberals insist. Simply put it means whatever WE want it to mean. Thats the position justice Kagan will embace whole heartidly. :confused:

cpd109
August 09, 2010, 21:09
Originally posted by V guy
Can a civil right be taken away? Libs claim that there is a basic civil right for gay marriage.

Once constitutional civil right has been established, because it predated the constitution, it is because it always existed.


I submit that if a future lib court decided to that the 2nd amendment was no longer an individual right, as guaranteed by the BOR, that the cow would jump over the moon.

Based on your definition, I would have to suggest that gay marriage is not consitutuional. They didn't come out of the closet until, what, the 80's? And marriage, not until recently when some states came out of the closet too.

As for the cow part, I still think that the UN will be involved. And still possible.

Varangian
August 10, 2010, 06:11
Originally posted by tuck0411


No gain other than we'll now have two guaranteed pinko votes for the next 30 years or so instead of just a few.


few
-er, -est, noun, pronoun
–adjective
1. not many but more than one

Dean P
August 10, 2010, 07:17
:D :bow: :biggrin: "snort" "snort" :rofl: :rofl:

tuck0411
August 10, 2010, 16:04
Originally posted by Varangian



few
-er, -est, noun, pronoun
�adjective
1. not many but more than one

Excuse me for being dense, but what point are you trying to make?

Beckman
August 11, 2010, 10:20
Originally posted by tuck0411


No gain other than we'll now have two guaranteed pinko votes for the next 30 years or so instead of just a few. That gain is too big for me. In effect, the votes of those justices are "locked-in," for the next "30 years" (or whatever).

Trading older justices for idealogically similar younger justices is a major advantage. Look at the ages of the five so-called conservative justices:

Alito - 60
Thomas - 62
Kennedy - 74
Scalia - 74
Roberts - 50

Two conservatives are already 74. Will they be able to live until a conservative president is able to appoint a replacement justice? Of course, any of the other three could also die prematurely.

If any one of those five dies or retires, we know what type of justice Obama will choose as a replacement.

It is a huge ideological advantage to have young, 50-something justices in your corner, as opposed to 70-something justices. In effect, those 70-something justices are more likely to have their seats "in play" due to retirement or death. Seats in-play are more likely to change hands, ideologically speaking.

If Obama gets to replace just one of those five conservatives, the court will swing left. Any further decisions will be made by a very, very liberal court. Both the Heller and MacDonald rulings have left allot of wiggle room to permit AWBs, gun registration, magazine limits, ammo bans, CCW bans, ets. If any Second Ammendment case comes before SCOTUS, a liberal court will vote against RKBA as much as possible. The liberals on the SCOTUS voted against MacDonald, despite the Heller ruling, so you can bet that they will support as much gun control as possible.

Stare decisis or not, any decision will be rationalized.

tuck0411
August 11, 2010, 10:32
Thanks, Beckman, you expanded on my point nicely. However, it's encouraging that we had 37 votes against Kagan, which was several more than voted against Sotomayor. And I think I read somewhere that 37 is the most votes ever against a justice who was confirmed. If Obama does get the chance to replace one of the conservatives, my guess is the total votes against will go up even more and maybe by enough to support a filibuster, with or without the results of the coming election. One can hope.

Beckman
August 11, 2010, 13:19
Tuck, yes, it is very likely that, if the country is again unlucky, and Obama gets to choose another justice, even with a Dem-controlled Senate, Obama may have to choose somebody less left-wing than either Sotomayor or Kagan.

However, with either a Dem-controlled or Repub-controlled Senate, Obama will still choose somebody that is left-wing. Clearly, with a Dem-controlled Senate, a nominee who is further to the left will be nominated and confirmed -- as we've seen with Sotomayor and Kagan -- but even with a Repub-controlled Senate, only the most outragous candidates will fail Senate confirmation.

Perhaps Obama will not be able to have another Kagan confirmed by a Repub Senate. But it is worth noting that Kagan was actually a VERY weak candidate, with ZERO judicial experience, and her leftism was plainly obvious. Even with those shortcommings, Kagan still got FIVE Repub votes and lost only one Dem vote.

Still, even if a Repub Senate forces Obama to nominate a candidate who is less liberal than Kagan or Sotomayor, that only means that we'll have a justice who is very liberal instead of very, very liberal. Even if the Repubs control the Senate, nobody really expexcts that Obama will nominate another Scalia, Thomas or Roberts.

Look at the confirmation votes for Ginsberg and Breyer, both are liberals, and both were nominated by Clinton: 96-3, and 87-9, respectively. Clearly, most Repubs voted for those liberal nominees, so it isn't clear that a Repub Senate will force Obama to pick a candidate who is even close to being a "moderate." Maybe the voting will become more partisan for Obama's next pick -- if we are that unlucky to see Obama get another pick -- but it isn't a certainty. After all, how often has Obama "moved to the middle" on any issue?

BTW, no, the 37 votes against Kagan's nomination is not a record for a confirmed justice. We don't even have to look at old history; there are two sitting justices who had more dissenting votes: Thomas (52-48) and Alito (58-42).

tuck0411
August 11, 2010, 13:41
Well, if the Repubs manage to regain control of the Senate, or even if they only increase their number but remain in the minority, they would seem to have the option of filibustering every nominee from Obama until he leaves office, assuming he doesn't in fact nominate someone who is suitably moderate. I suspect this has never happened before, but it's possible, no? What option would Obama have at that point other than leaving the nomination to the next President?

And thanks for correcting my 37-vote number. Bad info, obviously, or I just mis-read something.