Goodbye Justice Kennedy And Goodbye Gun Control
- Thread starter livingston
- Start date
Celt
.338 Win Mag
What a nice break that would be.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
I think the only thing that would give us such a window of relief would be if starting now, every official in every state from school board on up had an actual understanding of how our government is supposed to work, the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
What I’m going to be curious about is what will happen when liberal cities like San Fran and NY try to ignore pro-gun Supreme Court decisions...
MadScientist
.45 acp
Yea they’ll probably just try to pass a different law. Won’t let us ban assault weapons? Then we’ll increase the tax on .22/5.56. Make CCW “shall issue”? Then we’ll increase the requirements needed to get one. Round and round it goes
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
96coal449
.308 Win
This is scary. Sort of. If the seats get filled with supposed conservatives, and the they flip 180, I see a lot of people with no leader. The left, the right, and those fudds wallowing in center. A divided leaderless nation. One big mess ...... a SHTF scenario.
Keep your powder dry.
Keep your powder dry.
Shadow2
6.5 Creedmoor
Gorsuch replaced an already staunch Conservative pro-gun justice. His appointment changed nothing. It was only big because we “stole” that seat from Obama.
Replacing Kennedy is huge because he wasn’t always a reliable conservative vote. Replacing Breyer or RBG would be like Vesusvius blowing its top. If you don’t see this, you clearly don’t follow the politics of Scotus.
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
That clocks a ticking.
Not to be Debbie Downer but here is something to think about. Everyone on both sides of the issue is looking at Roe v. Wade as some sort of litmus test for this court appointment. The argument on the conservative side is this should not be something adjudicated at the federal level, but rather, should be left to the individual states to be legislated at that level. This is why we have the wailing right now on the left that such a flip by a conservative Supreme Court would result in abortion being legal in some states but not in others. Conservatives, on the other hand, say it is, at best, a state level issue and that would be the best hoped for outcome (at this time) -- kick it back to the states.
Now take that line of thought and apply it to the Second Amendment issue and what is the result?
Now take that line of thought and apply it to the Second Amendment issue and what is the result?
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Abortion is not a constitutional matter. Neither is same sex marriage. Both should be state matters. Hell, before Oberfgell what, 34 states had legalized same sex marriage? Why did we need the court to create a non-existent constitutonal right to same?
2A on the other hand, is squarely a constitutional issue.
2A on the other hand, is squarely a constitutional issue.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
The second amendment is federal law.
True, but..............
Rare is it that the Supreme Court will overturn a previous SC ruling (Heller). And it was none other than the revered Scalia that said “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”
Who, then, will craft and impose these limits? Of course it will generally be the states, leaving the courts to ultimately decide the constitutionality of such legislation. So the game of Whack-a-Mole will simply continue with, perhaps, the only difference being somewhat more aggressive whacking on the part of the SC........ once the individual cases finally work their way that high.
The Supreme Court, no matter how conservative or pro Second Amendment it may tilt, will never rule "The right enumerated in the Second Amendment is upheld except for possession of tanks, surface to air missles, vehicle mounted mini-guns, etc., etc." That is an unrealistic expectation. It's not their job to set limits. The states (and sometimes municipalities, perhaps even Congress again) will continue to put forth limitations on 2A and the court will whack them down if they are unconstitutional. That, I believe, is the best that we can hope for.
We all hope that someday the SC will rule that the SAFE Act and its ilk will be ruled unconstitutional. When will that be? In 2023, ten years after enactment? In the meantime we will have lived under its unconstitutional burden for 10 years. And that is all I see happening. Passage of a burdensome law, living under this burden for some period of time, then finally relief from the court only to have some new cockamamie law take its place so the whole process can start all over again. And that, in my view, is the BEST case scenario.
Call me a pessimist. I took a course once where I heard, "It is better to be pleasantly surprised than to be sorely disappointed." (Translation = don't set your expectations too high.)
Even the most conservative of our recent justices would not say, "Shall not be infringed..... Period!!!!!!!"
One final gloomy thought (I'm old and old people are allowed to be pessimistic and cranky).
It would behoove us to to keep in mind that all of the names on President Trump's list are "establishment" types. They are members of the "elite". Otherwise their names would not be on the list. It is doubtful that any of them view the right to keep and bear arms with the fervor and passion that the members of this board do.
Not a one of them will be Mr. Smith going to Washington. Constitutionalist Fudds at the best, most likely.
I hope to be pleasantly surprised. I hope to live that long.
It would behoove us to to keep in mind that all of the names on President Trump's list are "establishment" types. They are members of the "elite". Otherwise their names would not be on the list. It is doubtful that any of them view the right to keep and bear arms with the fervor and passion that the members of this board do.
Not a one of them will be Mr. Smith going to Washington. Constitutionalist Fudds at the best, most likely.
I hope to be pleasantly surprised. I hope to live that long.
Maybe Breyer will offer to help Ginsburg down a flight of stairs, and then she might fall and take him with her?
Is that too much to hope for?
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Everything you said, @tapper3 , is very well put. Especially the part about the court's actual job.
There is a majority of "staunch Conservatives" on the court for over a decade. They were all nominated as Conservatives. I follow reality, you follow spin.
Last edited:
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Scalia didn't. Thomas certainly hasn't (thank god).
They didn't need to. Someone has to write worthless minority opinions.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
Yeah thank God. You have to know if Hillary were elected, Thomas would have gone like Scalia. Speaking of, I think his death was very suspicious and I don't understand why there hasn't been more investigation into it.
You clearly ignored what I said about Kennedy but whatever, you have your mind set anyway.
Exonautic
.308 Win
Wait what? Since when? I thought she had had it at one point but was completely clear of it?
My point was, it doesn't make any difference, because they will ALWAYS adjust to play their roles to pretend there is a divided court. You are naive to believe they will let us ignore politics for 20-30 years. Both political parties play SCOTUS card to keep people politically active. They both need a divided court.
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
Scalia was old and obese. Not everything is a conspiracy.
Of course the parties want to manipulate the court, that’s no conspiracy and you’re not “woke” for “seeing” that.
What we have right now is the distinct reality of a solid conservative court on the horizon, with 2 really good chances for more seats. How this means nothing to you escapes me. I can think of no other explanation than you don’t follow the history of the court, as I stared before.
Saying, “it doesn’t matter,” is pure hogwash. Tell that to stalwart Bernie voters who refused to turn out for Hillary. How did that work out for them? Or for the Fudds who didn’t turn out against Cuomo. Or any other of the various movements which either failed to harness voting power or flat out blow off the process entirely.
“It doesn’t matter,” isn’t a statement that proves your political savvy. Quite the opposite.
What we have right now is the distinct reality of a solid conservative court on the horizon, with 2 really good chances for more seats. How this means nothing to you escapes me. I can think of no other explanation than you don’t follow the history of the court, as I stared before.
Saying, “it doesn’t matter,” is pure hogwash. Tell that to stalwart Bernie voters who refused to turn out for Hillary. How did that work out for them? Or for the Fudds who didn’t turn out against Cuomo. Or any other of the various movements which either failed to harness voting power or flat out blow off the process entirely.
“It doesn’t matter,” isn’t a statement that proves your political savvy. Quite the opposite.
Exactly. There “hasn’t” been an “investigation” because there WAS, it’s called an autopsy or whatever they call it in Texas and it was accepted by all relevant parties as having come to a valid determination. That conspiracy-minded individuals refuse to accept it is irrelevant.
Regardless, Mitch McConnel deftly “stole” that seat for Trump to fill with Gorsuch instead of Obama with Garland. If you think that “doesn’t matter”, try explaining how so to a knowledgeable lefty. It’s practically Obama’s Waterloo.
You continue to ignore my point. The court will stay divided so both parties can use that to rally their base.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
Sure thing. The deep state also doen't exist, it's an alt right conspiracy theory as is the Clinton's trail of bodies. The left would burn this country to the ground simply for the chance to rule over the ashes. That's what I believe. I don't believe in coinsidences anymore man. Sorry that doesn't sit well with you. I just think in this day and age, skepticism is paramount.