Our new Future Surpreme Court...

GOPerfect

GOPerfect

.950 JDJ
U.S. Military
Messages
31,950
Reaction score
73,496
Location
No longer Secret, thanks DR. Evil
With the election over we have an opportunity to get some pretty good 2A Justices on the Court.

What is everyone's best guess in regards to the SAFE Act becoming null and void?

Serious question. Do we really think it is possible?
 
MilesTeg

MilesTeg

.338 Win Mag
U.S. Military
Messages
5,046
Reaction score
6,427
Location
Madison Co.
I think we are at least 10 years out if ever to getting the thing gone. I think we need to make sure he gets 2 in from there a new lawsuit would need to be filed. Then that lawsuit would have to work it's way through the system. I hope there's something he can do legislatively with congresses help. I'm not sure what he can do other than holding federal funding back.
 
Jem45472

Jem45472

.308 Win
Messages
4,259
Reaction score
6,879
Location
Erie
I think it's possible eventually. California's proposition 63 has just passed so they are probably working something up right now.
 
togmaster

togmaster

.450/400 Nitro Ex
Messages
13,306
Reaction score
20,078
Location
Buoy 42
It is very possible and I would just about guarantee it if Trump can appoint 2 or more Justices during his term. It will take a while but UNSAFE is so flawed that it will ultimately fail.
 
Celt

Celt

.450/400 Nitro Ex
Messages
9,703
Reaction score
20,064
Location
Westchester
of course he gets 1 right off the bat, but we need ginsberg or breyer to step down so he gets a second. however, even with 1 on there, the 1 justice majority would be good for a gun rights case as they typically leaned conservative on gun rights cases before scalias passing.

we reallllllllly, need to get at least 2 seats, but you can bet that ginsberg and breyer (the two old liberals) are going to try and hang on for 4 years, so we gotta hope trump wins a second term because i cant see them making 8 years (especially ginsberg).

once he appoints the 1st pro2a justice, nysrpa needs to get the safe act case moving again (fingers crossed because i have little faith in them). with luck, we could stand a chance within 5 years.
 
togmaster

togmaster

.450/400 Nitro Ex
Messages
13,306
Reaction score
20,078
Location
Buoy 42
How old is Ginsberg? She looks at least 150. I am hoping longevity doesn't run in her family.
 
speedkills27

speedkills27

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
1,878
Reaction score
2,323
Location
Erie county
cant he propose something like a federal preemption, claiming because the right to bear arms is specifically enumerated in the Constitution it is therefore federal dominion? After that make a law saying no state can have stricter laws then the Feds. I dont know if thats possible, or what kind of doors it opens, but its a thought. I normally wouldn't advocate for the feds taking more power from the states but in this case some states are abusing their citizens rights.
 
Catskillkid

Catskillkid

.450/400 Nitro Ex
Messages
10,084
Reaction score
18,433
Location
Livin' in a Gangsta's Paradise (AKA New York)
speedkills27 said:
cant he propose something like a federal preemption, claiming because the right to bear arms is specifically enumerated in the Constitution it is therefore federal dominion? After that make a law saying no state can have stricter laws then the Feds. I dont know if thats possible, or what kind of doors it opens, but its a thought. I normally wouldn't advocate for the feds taking more power from the states but in this case some states are abusing their citizens rights.
Click to expand...

I've wondered this myself. Don't they do similar things with voting rights?
 
Phauxtoe

Phauxtoe

.338 Win Mag
Messages
7,003
Reaction score
6,552
Location
Rockland
well doesn't she also do the scary movie show besides the court thing?
her screen name is "the Crypt Keeper"
Tales from the Crypt Keeper.jpg
 
Jmac00

Jmac00

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
18,855
Reaction score
51,666
Location
somewhere in America
Roberts is 61
Kennedy is 80
Thomas is 68
Ginsburg is 83
Breyer is 78
Alito is 66

These are the major players on the Supreme court. Ginsburg, Kennedy, and Breyer are the ones on the bubble.
 
John Stark

John Stark

.44 mag
Messages
940
Reaction score
2,747
Location
IAM
The Federal government has the power, duty, responsibility, authority, and moral imperative under the 14th Amendment and various other Constitutional remedies and Federal statutes to step into any state and stop the abuse of the Federal Rights of any citizen of the United States by state authorities.

This is precisely what happened during the Civil Rights era in the South, when it came to voting, segregation, and so on.

And if Cuomo didn't like Federal agents storming through the state arresting any state officials who were violating those Rights, and tried to stop them, the Federal government would be well within that very same umbrella of power, duty, responsibility, authority, and moral imperative to call out the National Guard to put down an insurrection and arrest the governor.

If Cuomo attempted to close Christian churches or Jewish temples, or shut down the newspapers and other media outlets, or sought to force people to pay a tax to vote, and so on, would there be any doubt under the 14th Amendment that the Feds have the power to put the kibosh on that?

Gun control in America could, and should, have been squashed by the Feds under the 14th Amendment long ago if it was actually doing its job, which is to protect the Rights of the American people in all states, and serve them.

The fact that egregious acts such as the NFA of '34 and the Gun Control Act of '68 or the Brady Bill of '93 were put on the books by the Feds in the first place in no way diminishes the Constitutional power of the Federal government to protect the Rights of Life, Liberty, and Happiness (or property) of US citizens regardless of state residency.

The Feds never did have the power to enact any of those gun control measures, as each and everyone one of them is a complete usurpation of the Second Amendment Rights of the American people; and the fact that they did so, and have allowed egregious laws like the Sullivan Act of 1911 in NY and the "black laws" in the south to remain on the books in the form of permits and licensing and "good cause" and so on for hand guns ought to tell us everything we need to know about how far down the rabbit hole our Federal form of government has fallen.

They certainly don't need the Supreme Court to chime in any further!

Its never been a matter of the Law in any way, shape or form, but rather, a matter of the will of those in power in Washington DC to exercise that power for the good of the People. That they don't do so speaks volumes to those who understand the Constitution in the first place.
 
Cooolone

Cooolone

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,266
Reaction score
9,696
Location
NY, USA
Until the media, and HOLLYWOOD embrace and promote the 2nd as it has done with alternate lifestyle with regard to sexual preferences which is now protected to strict scrutiny... There's no chance!

Yes, the current POTUS elect, Trump and the majorities now enjoyed in Congress can ultimately ensure that they will have influence in the selection of the next SCOTUS justices, be sure, it's going to be a fight, a nasty fight.

Best thing can happen is Ginsberg and the flip/flop Kennedy renounce their citizenship and move to Canada, lol... But yes, as soon as he was elected, I thought the same thing, that she will most definitely die in office because she will not abdicate her position voluntarily... It's something about power, and how it corrupts...

Our best hope is that as all the Indians fall around the chief, that King Andy fall too... That in itself would invalidate the entire thing and allow a quicker path to repeal in my opinion.

Waiting for a solid test case to provide standing to sue, and then allow it to migrate up through the courts while slowly withering away is not the way. It's moronic, but it won't get the attention it deserves like the example I provided initially, that alternate lifestyles somehow have a greater importance than a silly little Amendment that contained words which explicitly denoted, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"... But this is from a SCOTUS which has assigned rights to Corporations as if they were a person, and who have ignored basic endowed rights to the agenda of the Political Left while embracing, no, championing, the same agenda (left) in the political theatre. To be sure, they have made some rulings recently which give pause to say it's working... But I fear it isn't in the manner as intended.

Know this, be cautious as to expectations just because one person over another has been elected. Don't get caught up in a fever of entitlement like the last POTUS had effect upon a certain demographic in this country.
 
VietnamEraVet

VietnamEraVet

.308 Win
U.S. Military
Messages
4,223
Reaction score
8,911
Location
Ex WNY as of 08/2018. Screw FUAC & FUKH too!
Jmac00 said:
no chance with a House and senate controlled by Republicans, not to worry, Im sure NObama will release a couple thousand more known drug dealers and murderers as retaliation
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you on that. I absolutely fear that our not yet departed despicable koksucker will do exactly that as part of a FU to us. Also, I believe he has a path to do it. As I understand it, he can make recess appointments when Congress is not in session. The current Congress ends on something like January 5th (?), and he remains in office until the 20th. So, he can make any recess appointments he wants to between those dates.
 
Pale Rider

Pale Rider

.44 mag
U.S. Military
Messages
885
Reaction score
793
Location
Sullivan, NY
speedkills27 said:
cant he propose something like a federal preemption, claiming because the right to bear arms is specifically enumerated in the Constitution it is therefore federal dominion? After that make a law saying no state can have stricter laws then the Feds. I dont know if thats possible, or what kind of doors it opens, but its a thought. I normally wouldn't advocate for the feds taking more power from the states but in this case some states are abusing their citizens rights.
Click to expand...

Federal preemption legislation is the way to go, along with national reciprocity. These things could be accomplished much more quickly than a Supreme Court ruling, and would, down the line, be upheld by a conservative court.
 
prambo

prambo

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
18,454
Reaction score
43,577
Location
P
soylentBlue said:
What are the chances Obama will try a recess appointment of Garland?
Click to expand...

It would have no force in law that I know off. He has no Constitutional authority to do that - not that that's stopped him yet.

If he does this, and it sticks, it establishes a dangerous precedent that any future POTUS could use, including Trump.

ETA: I was wrong, but the path is convoluted and not easy. Further, I have no idea if Trump could reverse that decision.

Is a recess appointment to the Court an option? (UPDATED)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top