Justice Antonin Scalia found dead, age 79

[Rick_ICT]

This is not good. (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/us-world/article/Senior-Associate-Justice-Antonin-Scalia-found-6828930.php) Do the Republicans in the Senate have the backbone to run out the clock on an Obama nominee?

[gtmtnbiker98]

We are screwed!

[Rich@CCC]

We are well and truly fucked now!

Not only has a good man died, Obumer will get to replace him on the SCOTUS with an anti Constitution liberal hack.

[Rick_ICT]

Hopefully the Republicans in the Senate have the stones to run out the clock. Don't worry, Mitch McConnell is a rock I tell you, a rock! :(

[Guinnessman]

Godspeed to one hell of a defender of our Constitution! My heart aches for this country.

[Joe in PNG]

Oh, crap.

[tanner]

Well, hopefully it will stay stuck with 8 justices for as long as possible...

I wonder how long the Senate can gum the process up? You know the President isn't going to nominate anyone palatable to the Republicans.

[JAD]

Just awful news. Makes me want to not talk about politics for... I dunno, a year.

[RevolverRob]

Thank goodness there is a Republican controlled senate and house. This would be truly devastating otherwise.

-Rob

[CoGT3]

Just called my favorite AR builder and told him to SBR another lower.

And no, I don't think the Republicans will have enough spine to hold off a really bad nomination.

[Gray222]

Hopefully they can push the next nomination out until the next election.

[MD7305]

I just had a flashback to this article from last month. http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/26/hillary-clinton-on-nominating-obama-to-the-supreme-court-great-idea/

God help us.

[Tamara]

5932

Festive.

[Gray222]

I just had a flashback to this article from last month. http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/26/hillary-clinton-on-nominating-obama-to-the-supreme-court-great-idea/

God help us.

I dare say, that would not be allowed by anyone who wants to be re-elected...

[SeriousStudent]

I dare say, that would not be allowed by anyone who wants to be re-elected...

I see her doing it.

Bobo pardons the Hildebeast and her bestest friend Houma.

She nominates Bobo for SCOTUS.

Ginsburg steps down, and Houma gets nominated next.

It's like a Greek tragedy, where you can see trouble coming from miles away. But you paid big money for the tickets, so you stay in your seat.

[Dagga Boy]

My day just became a very bad one. We are screwed. It also makes this election far more serious than a majority of America understands.

[idahojess]

Very sad. He spoke at our school -- years ago, pre 9-11. He had a public speech and then a lecture with the law students on a second day. Some of the braver students asked him challenging questions. I remember one of his responses: "If you want it that way, then perhaps we should have a King!" I believe he was an avid fly fisherman.

As far as politics goes, probably not a bad time to donate to your favorite gun-rights organization.

[Rick_ICT]

I think it definitely just raised the stakes in the presidential nomination through the roof. I doubt we get a new Justice this year, which means whoever is next in the White House is going to make the nomination. I also suspect it won't be the only seat the next President will have to fill.

[farscott]

We should remember that Justice Scalia lived the American dream and celebrate his life and career. His father was an immigrant to the USA, and his mother was born to immigrants. From those beginnings, he excelled in life. He served his country in a variety of roles, including teaching at the same university law school as President Obama later did, before being nominated to the SCOTUS, and he stood by his principles.

We should honor his life by insuring our Senators understand that his successor must be the same type of person as Justice Scalia.

[JV_]

What an amazing loss for our country. I never heard Justice Scalia talk, in person, but I've always been in awe of his intellect. His son, Father Paul Scalia, has the same intellectual gift.

5933

[Dave J]

I am somewhat acquainted with Scalia's son, who also happens to be a serving Infantry officer. IIRC, he has two other siblings who are, or were, in the military (Navy and Coast Guard, I think).

My impression was that there is no shortage of character in his family.

[JV_]

Justice Scalia had 9 children, and 28 grandchildren.

It's interesting to note that he was good friends with Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

[RoyGBiv]

Godspeed Justice Scalia.

God save us.

[Gray222]

I see her doing it.

Bobo pardons the Hildebeast and her bestest friend Houma.

She nominates Bobo for SCOTUS.

Ginsburg steps down, and Houma gets nominated next.

It's like a Greek tragedy, where you can see trouble coming from miles away. But you paid big money for the tickets, so you stay in your seat.

I want to say that the American people will revolt, but who knows what people are going to think now a days...

[Chuck Haggard]

We already have a thread started on this subject.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?19214-Antonin-Scalia-Found-dead

[ssb]

What an amazing loss for our country. I never heard Justice Scalia talk, in person, but I've always been in awe of his intellect. His son, Father Paul Scalia, has the same intellectual gift.

5933

I had the opportunity to have lunch with him and another justice about a year ago. The man had wit.

[TAZ]

Wow. We are in for a rough ride if Osama, Hitlery or Bernie get to nominate a Justice and the republican senate shows its usual backbone... I mean back side.

[45dotACP]

Very bad news indeed. Terrible shame the republican party is in disarray and Donald Trump is the frontrunner.

Even worse that Hilary Clinton is the DNC favorite.

Sent from my VS876 using Tapatalk

[SLG]

Very unfortunate for the rest of us still on this earth. He was a great man, and we are unlikely to see his like in that position again. RIP.

[Robinson]

I feel like a chapter has just been slammed shut. Actually it's hard to express how this feels. Who is left?

What a dark day.

[JV_]

"Bear in mind that brains and learning, like muscle and physical skill, are articles of commerce. They are bought and sold. You can hire them by the year or by the hour. The only thing in the world not for sale is character."

-Antonin Gregory Scalia

[Rick_ICT]

We already have a thread started on this subject.

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?19214-Antonin-Scalia-Found-dead



Makes no difference to me which thread is being utilized, but I think if you check the time stamp on both threads original post, you'll find this is the original thread on the subject.

;)


Nevertheless, the other thread is certainly the logical place to continue the discussion at this point.

[GardoneVT]

Not to downplay how negative this event is in general,but I believe the greater legal impact is actually negligible.

Heller was won by a slim margin ,yes. Indeed the next person Obama picks will by nature be anti gun. That being said, what would really be different?

The states and cities with anti gun political blocks have already ignored Heller and every pro-gun case since. On the flip side, pro firearms states will be just as defiant even if the SCOTUS reverses Heller tomorrow . Of course there'd be a need for anti gun laws to be challenged and taken up by then first,and that's unlikely to happen so long as we still have the House and Senate.

I don't have faith in politicians, but I do have faith in the separation of powers.

[GJM]

I just watched our President. Couldn't he have found a tie to wear, when announcing Justice Scalia's death. Obama looked quite nervous, and then I realized he had no teleprompter.

[JV_]

The/Obama's tie is found over at the SCOTUS, it's sitting with 8 members.

[ssb]

Many days I have cause to seriously question whether I should continue my social media presence. Today is one of those.

[StraitR]

CBS NEWS February 13, 2016, 8:22 PM
Obama: I plan to nominate a successor to Justice Scalia (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/president-obama-to-address-antonin-scalias-death/)

[Jeep]

Anton Scalia was one of the greatest justices in the history of the Supreme Court. Almost by himself he remade American law on how statutes should be read, and by his intellectual force he was the principal block on the liberal attempt to turn the Constitution into a document that means whatever the liberal establishment wants it to mean at any time.

He was a great man, and in the years to come we are going to see just how much he meant to keeping together the tattered fragments of our Constitutional republic.

May he rest in peace. And may the rest of us step up to help fill his hole his death will leave in the fabric of the nation.

[Guinnessman]

Anton Scalia was one of the greatest justices in the history of the Supreme Court. Almost by himself he remade American law on how statutes should be read, and by his intellectual force he was the principal block on the liberal attempt to turn the Constitution into a document that means whatever the liberal establishment wants it to mean at any time.

He was a great man, and in the years to come we are going to see just how much he meant to keeping together the tattered fragments of our Constitutional republic.

May he rest in peace. And may the rest of us step up to help fill his hole his death will leave in the fabric of the nation.

Tonight I pray that he is sitting next to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and the other founding fathers. If there is any time in history that we need Guardian Angels, that time is now.

[DocGKR]

Yes indeed...

[Arbninftry]

We The People - Get The Government We Deserve.

Until We The People recognize that skills fix things and not liberal BS like African Women's Studies, we will circle the drain. I am not saying a well rounded education is not the answer, just the opposite. We need educated mathematicians and scientists. Philosophy will only go so far. This has to go forward as a real movement and throw out politicians that are just a politician.
Pass my work ethic out not my money!

RIP Justice Scalia

Until then "Buy it Cheap, Stack it Deep"
It's going to get a lot worse, before it gets better!!!

[45dotACP]

Not to downplay how negative this event is in general,but I believe the greater legal impact is actually negligible.

Heller was won by a slim margin ,yes. Indeed the next person Obama picks will by nature be anti gun. That being said, what would really be different?

The states and cities with anti gun political blocks have already ignored Heller and every pro-gun case since. On the flip side, pro firearms states will be just as defiant even if the SCOTUS reverses Heller tomorrow . Of course there'd be a need for anti gun laws to be challenged and taken up by then first,and that's unlikely to happen so long as we still have the House and Senate.

I don't have faith in politicians, but I do have faith in the separation of powers.

I'm actually interested in this particular discussion...

Obviously, the right to keep arms is not in question to me. It has been ruled on in Heller and McDonald and I'm fairly certain with those cases in the books SCOTUS is going to look at most cases coming in (even assault weapons bans) and say "Yeah, just look back to our decision in Heller and McDonald. You can own guns with reasonable restrictions, so sod off, we've got more important things to do."

I'd be more worried about the right to bear arms. That is, more specifically, bans and absolutely draconian "May issue" restrictions on CCW which could (and probably will) still be labeled by the court as a "reasonable restriction" and ditto assault weapons/high cap mag laws...but probably not outright banned unless through the House and Senate.

Which is of course, is why we really need to focus on keeping the house and senate and of course, try very very hard to keep Hilary or Bernie (or Trump, yeah I'm saying it) from taking office.

[TGS]

I'm actually interested in this particular discussion...

Obviously, the right to keep arms is not in question to me. It has been ruled on in Heller and McDonald and I'm fairly certain with those cases in the books SCOTUS is going to look at most cases coming in (even assault weapons bans) and say "Yeah, just look back to our decision in Heller and McDonald. You can own guns with reasonable restrictions, so sod off, we've got more important things to do."

I'd be more worried about the right to bear arms. That is, more specifically, bans and absolutely draconian "May issue" restrictions on CCW which could (and probably will) still be labeled by the court as a "reasonable restriction" and ditto assault weapons/high cap mag laws...but probably not outright banned unless through the House and Senate.

Which is of course, is why we really need to focus on keeping the house and senate and of course, try very very hard to keep Hilary or Bernie (or Trump, yeah I'm saying it) from taking office.

The difference between "keep" and "bear" means jack shit when the court in question will affirm the 2nd Amendment as a collective right belonging to the national guard.

[45dotACP]

I see your point, but semantics aside, has the court ever reversed a decision in a manner which restricts the rights of a group of citizens? I was under the impression that they didn't roll like that...

[Kingsfield]

.... has the court ever reversed a decision in a manner which restricts the rights of a group of citizens? I was under the impression that they didn't roll like that...


Yes. For example, see thread:

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?15972-privacy-and-4A-protections-in-a-post-9-11-world&p=319452#post319452, where I noted:

'Are papers of no pecuniary value but possessing evidential value against persons presently suspected and subsequently indicted under sections 37 and 215 of the United States Criminal Code, when taken under search warrants issued pursuant to the Act of June 15, 1917, from the house or office of the person suspected, seized and taken in violation of the Fourth Amendment?'

Answer: Yes.

Gouled v. U.S., 255 U.S. 298 (1921).

There the Court states (in an approach no longer operative):

Although search warrants have thus been used in many cases ever since the adoption of the Constitution, and although their use has been extended from time to time to meet new cases within the old rules, nevertheless it is clear that, at common law and as the result of the Boyd and Weeks Cases, supra, they may not be used as a means of gaining access to a man's house or office and papers solely for the purpose of making search to secure evidence to be used against him in a criminal or penal proceeding, but that they may be resorted to only when a primary right to such search and seizure may be found in the interest which the public or the complainant may have in the property to be seized, or in the right to the possession of it, or when a valid exercise of the police power renders possession of the property by the accused unlawful and provides that it may be taken.

[45dotACP]

Well shit...then we have a possible problem because there's no way SCOTUS will sit empty for that long...so who's on the shortlist? Sri Srinivasan? Jane Kelly? I did hear Loretta Lynch's name God help us all...

Sent from my VS876 using Tapatalk

[davisj]

Rest in peace Justice Scalia. Prayers for your family and our nation.

Given the fact Justice Scalia wasn't under the direct care of 14 physicians in a medical center at the time of his death, cue that nut Alex Jones in 3...2...

[ssb]

I see your point, but semantics aside, has the court ever reversed a decision in a manner which restricts the rights of a group of citizens? I was under the impression that they didn't roll like that...

Just to be clear, four of the current sitting justices either a) voted against Heller and McDonald or b) believe those decisions were wrongly decided. I think it's a virtual certainty that anybody Obama (or Clinton, for that matter) were to appoint would be of the same mind, given the opinions of Justices Kagan and Sotomayor. Sotomayor affirmed that Heller's holding of an individual right to keep and bear arms was "settled law" in their confirmation hearings -- and then went on to join Breyer's dissent in McDonald, which stated that no such right existed. Justice Kagan has not had opportunity to rule on the issue, but her past history makes it a virtual certainty that she is of the same mind as Sotomayor. She certainly gave plenty of non-answers on the subject during her confirmation hearing.

Based on his statements in dissents on other issues, I believe Justice Breyer would be willing to overturn Heller even if that wasn't the issue before the Court. For example, every time they get a death penalty case, he dissents he would hold the death penalty as a whole unconstitutional -- even if the question before the Court is whether a particular method of execution or manner of sentencing violates the individual's rights, and he authored a dissent to overturn Heller in McDonald in 2010.

[mc1911]

Candidly, given how "conservative" Roberts has been, it's hard to be confident that any upcoming appointment will be satisfactory.

If I could point to one mistake the founders made, it was in their decision for lifetime appointments in the judicial system. My understanding is that it was based on the idea that by doing so, justices and judges would rise above politics and do the right thing. Ironically, they were in the process of building a different type of political system because they knew that people with too much power eventually run amok. Somehow they didn't extend that logic to the courts and so here we are.

[GJM]

Candidly, given how "conservative" Roberts has been, it's hard to be confident that any upcoming appointment will be satisfactory.

If I could point to one mistake the founders made, it was in their decision for lifetime appointments in the judicial system. My understanding is that it was based on the idea that by doing so, justices and judges would rise above politics and do the right thing. Ironically, they were in the process of building a different type of political system because they knew that people with too much power eventually run amok. Somehow they didn't extend that logic to the courts and so here we are.

Lifetime appointment meant something different when life expectancy was 50.

[Cincinnatus]

Candidly, given how "conservative" Roberts has been, it's hard to be confident that any upcoming appointment will be satisfactory.

If I could point to one mistake the founders made, it was in their decision for lifetime appointments in the judicial system. My understanding is that it was based on the idea that by doing so, justices and judges would rise above politics and do the right thing. Ironically, they were in the process of building a different type of political system because they knew that people with too much power eventually run amok. Somehow they didn't extend that logic to the courts and so here we are.

When this was done in the Constitution, the exact powers of the Court were not explicitly stated. There is no power of Judicial Review to overturn laws passed by elected representatives based on unconstitutionality given to the Court in the Constitution. The Court seized that power for itself in Marbury v. Madison, 1802. According to the 9th and 10th Amendments, it could be argued that "the People" and the States should get to interpret the Constitution, not the Supreme Court.
Also, Jefferson and Madison, the authors of the Declaration and the Bill of Rights respectively, were greatly troubled by both the rise of Judicial Review and of Broad Construction of the Constitution. Today, we are so far past Broad Construction that whether something is forbidden or "necessary and proper" are irrelevant, for even the explicitly stated wording of "shall not be infringed" is now twisted to be infringed upon daily by lunatic, left-wing judges.
Our Constitution, one written to be changed only through the amendment process, is now continually changed by evolving interpretations of words and conspiracies of semantics; we are now where we were in 1775 under the British Constitution, with a living, breathing, evolving document that is based more on precedent and judicial whim than on the actual written words in the document. (The British Constitution was mostly unwritten, which was the problem.)

[Palmguy]

Well shit...then we have a possible problem because there's no way SCOTUS will sit empty for that long...so who's on the shortlist? Sri Srinivasan? Jane Kelly? I did hear Loretta Lynch's name God help us all...

Sent from my VS876 using Tapatalk

I think if Obama is smart, he nominates Srinivasan, who was confirmed 97-0 to his current post less than three years ago. Cruz, Rubio, and McConnell were among those who voted to confirm him.

[JV_]

Lifetime appointment meant something different when life expectancy was 50.

Even back in the 1700-1800s we had justices serving a long time on the bench, were there objections back then? Bushrod Washington served 31 years on the bench when he died in 1829. John Marshall served 33 years and died in 1835. Overall, we had a slew of justices serving 20-30 years in the 1800s.

I don't think life expectancy (as a single metric) is the best way to track things. It may be better to look at the average number of years they sat at the bench. Or average age at appointment compared to average life expectancy.

[peterb]

Calls to block a nomination regardless of who it is are out of line. This " If he's fer it, I'm agin' it" knee-jerk crap is part of why Congress has such dismal approval ratings.

I don't expect a good nominee. If the vote is not to confirm, fine. But deciding without a hearing completely fails the "How would you feel if the positions were reversed?" test.

[idahojess]

I think the lifetime appointment's a good thing. I realize that there is a lot of gloom about who the current president might appoint. However, Scalia served for close to 30 years (September 1986). I'm glad he was there as long as he was, and that he was able to put together the body of case law that he did. The only thing that could force him out of that position was returning home. If there were a cap on terms (say 20 years), we might have not had Heller.

[wrmettler]

Who says the Senate will have the opportunity to even address the next appointment.

Go here.

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/226701/#respond

If the Senate is in recess, the President might be able to make a "recess appointment".

[Tamara]

If the Senate is in recess, the President might be able to make a "recess appointment".

Further reading (http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is-a-recess-appointment-to-the-court-an-option/).

[wrmettler]

Tamara,

Good read.

I bet there are some Senator's heading back to DC.

[GardoneVT]

Candidly, given how "conservative" Roberts has been, it's hard to be confident that any upcoming appointment will be satisfactory.

If I could point to one mistake the founders made, it was in their decision for lifetime appointments in the judicial system. My understanding is that it was based on the idea that by doing so, justices and judges would rise above politics and do the right thing. Ironically, they were in the process of building a different type of political system because they knew that people with too much power eventually run amok. Somehow they didn't extend that logic to the courts and so here we are.

Honestly I believe this is still working as intended.

Yes there's politics involved in the selection process, and when sitting justices leave office during an election year it doesn't help. But as a whole the system is working as intended.

Let's play this out. Whether Obama will nominate a liberal successor isn't a question. Neither is the fact such an individual will be confirmed relatively soon,if only to strike while the issue is hot AND to further marginalize the GOP during an election year. The Mortons Fork for the Republicans is they can either rubber stamp a liberal candidate ,or they can stonewall and get pilloried by the media as being obstructionist bureaucrats holding up the country's business for politics. Last time the GOP tried that with Obamacare it blew up in their faces.

So ,we get a leftist justice and the attendant majority. Now let's make some assumptions.First one is ,the High Court immediately sets about undermining Heller. Next case they get on guns they rule as a majority that the individual rights perspective in Heller is deader then Doo-Wop music.

Next they get a carry case, and use it to say that CCW is an exclusive privilege of the state legislature (which in fact it is for most states anyways pro or anti gun) outside the bounds of the 2nd Amendment and thus subject to unlimited local regulation.

Doom and gloom scenario to be sure. But what is the result on the street? Texas wont pass an AWB just because the SCOTUS says it's OK. North Dakotas not going may issue the next day if an adverse CCW law passes.

On the flip side, California & NYS (among other places )aren't going to abandon gun control no matter what the SCOTUS does. They could rule the 2nd Amendment is a codified civil right enforceable by the US Justice Department, and CA would simply ignore it and go full Ammon Bundy. "FU and your Constitution" is alive and well in most liberal areas,and nothing less then an armed Federal occupation in the fashion of 1960s Jim Crow America would compel them to abide by it now .

So on the local level little changes. At the Federal level,the gun banners don't control the House and the Senate. Without those two legislative bodies no Federal gun law will even make it to the Oval Office desk for signature, to say nothing about it being challenged successfully afterwards in a liberal SCOTUS. Frankly if public support has gone from supporting concealed carry to supporting gun control, the legislative body to hold responsible isn't DC, but ourselves.

/beginOCrant

The public has a long collective memory of foolishness. Every time some nimrod films a YouTube video about an unnecessary open carry challenge to the police, or walks through a legislative building with a low ready AK it sends a message to the uninitiated that maybe we've gone too far with this gun rights thing. If guys like James Yeager are advocating public murder and issuing documented duel requests on the Internet, maybe people really shouldn't be trusted to possess weapons without supervision from Uncle Sam. If cops (just stating the public zeitgeist, I don't agree with it at all) are using deadly force excessively and they're trained, why are we letting fat guys with too much time on their hands coonfinger ARs at the local Starbucks?

Then there's the individual level. Caleb Giddings at Gunnuts commented about being swept by negligent fools with guns. He's a champion shooter and professional instructor, and looking down the wrong end of a firearm at the range display justifiably upsets him. Imagine what Mr and Ms New Shooter think when the same thing happens to them! If every time a person visits a range of gun shop they see life threatening negligence it's not going to help the overal message of "we need fewer laws". They'll think -

"Really ? Fewer laws!? I can't walk down an aisle at Gander Mountains gun area without dodging pistols and rifles being pointed at me."

Maybe we need some "common sense regulation",Jane Everywoman might think. Should enough public support exist for an AWB 2.0 today , when we have many advantages we didn't have in the 1990s it will be because we have failed as a group. We'll have documented proof that instead of building connections and relevance with the nation of uninitiated voters for lasting acceptance of gun rights , we squabbled about Glocks vs Sigs and Which Carry Method is Cooler. Hopefully we don't learn that a Right Ignored is a Right Denied the hard way.

/endOCrant.

[Palmguy]

Further reading (http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is-a-recess-appointment-to-the-court-an-option/).

According to the Instapundit article, the Senate is not currently in pro forma session and is in the midst of a 10 day recess. I wonder if McConnell's firm refusal to consider anyone yesterday just gave Obama an excuse to make a recess appointment this week "in the best interests of the country", lest the court operate with only 8 members for over a year.

[11B10]

Further reading (http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/is-a-recess-appointment-to-the-court-an-option/).



Everyone - do your blood pressure a big favor and read this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - it'll make ya feel a lot better!

Thanks, Tam - for a great link!

[11B10]

I'm actually interested in this particular discussion...

Obviously, the right to keep arms is not in question to me. It has been ruled on in Heller and McDonald and I'm fairly certain with those cases in the books SCOTUS is going to look at most cases coming in (even assault weapons bans) and say "Yeah, just look back to our decision in Heller and McDonald. You can own guns with reasonable restrictions, so sod off, we've got more important things to do."

I'd be more worried about the right to bear arms. That is, more specifically, bans and absolutely draconian "May issue" restrictions on CCW which could (and probably will) still be labeled by the court as a "reasonable restriction" and ditto assault weapons/high cap mag laws...but probably not outright banned unless through the House and Senate.

Which is of course, is why we really need to focus on keeping the house and senate and of course, try very very hard to keep Hilary or Bernie (or Trump, yeah I'm saying it) from taking office.




I hear ya - however, who would YOU want?

[joshs]

I'm actually interested in this particular discussion...

Obviously, the right to keep arms is not in question to me. It has been ruled on in Heller and McDonald and I'm fairly certain with those cases in the books SCOTUS is going to look at most cases coming in (even assault weapons bans) and say "Yeah, just look back to our decision in Heller and McDonald. You can own guns with reasonable restrictions, so sod off, we've got more important things to do.".

There are at least three votes on the current Court for overruling Heller and McDonald. Ginsburg even publicly used Heller as an example of the importance of dissenting so that a future court has an established "precedent" to overrule an "incorrect" decision.

[Palmguy]

An unnamed WH official has stated that the President will wait until the Senate is back in session to put forth a nominee.

[PPGMD]

An unnamed WH official has stated that the President will wait until the Senate is back in session to put forth a nominee.

If the Senate plans to stonewall on the nominee they will need to remain in "session" until the Obama administration is out of office. As the SCOTUS already ruled that recess appointments can't happen even if the senate being in session is a formality.

And I don't see that SCOTUS getting overturned anytime soon as it was a 9-0 decision.

[45dotACP]

I hear ya - however, who would YOU want?
For pres or for the new SCOTUS? I hear Jane Kelly is chummy with Chuck Grassley, so she may be at least be 2a sympathetic and her name has come up a time or two, being from Obama's graduating class at Harvard. Sri is said to be well liked...

No way in hell should the senate be cool with Loretta Lynch...whose name I've heard come up.

For prez, I like Ted Cruz.

Sent from my VS876 using Tapatalk

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The idea that Heller and McD are safe is raised sometimes. However, that is foolish. First, the Court does reconsider. Affirmative Action in colleges and various nuances of abortion rights keep on coming to the court. To overturn Roe v. Wade is out there all the time. Overturning the gun decisions is quite, quite possible.

The history of civil rights, segregation - decisions overturned as the sentiment of that time changed.

Second - local bans are quite popular nowadays as are encroachments based on increasingly vague mental health reporting at the state level. Even with Scalia there, there was no desire to take on these decisions. Reasonable restrictions clearly can be seen as including anything more than a double barrel shotgun and SW Model 10 for home defense. There was hope that the court would take these on but there is even less of a chance now.

BTW, watching a friend shoot an IDPA match the other day with a pretty stock Model 10 - it would be hard to argue that Cletus needs a Glock 17. Let him practice. Zombie apocalypse - haha.

I've seen speculation that Scalia thought the other restrictions could be revisited later but that hasn't worked out as seen in his and Thomas' recent dissent on EBRs.

I think Federal level progress expanding gun rights on the SCOTUS level is out of the question for the foreseeable future. If Hillary is president they will attacked and weakened.

[45dotACP]

The idea that Heller and McD are safe is raised sometimes. However, that is foolish. First, the Court does reconsider. Affirmative Action in colleges and various nuances of abortion rights keep on coming to the court. To overturn Roe v. Wade is out there all the time. Overturning the gun decisions is quite, quite possible.

The history of civil rights, segregation - decisions overturned as the sentiment of that time changed.

Second - local bans are quite popular nowadays as are encroachments based on increasingly vague mental health reporting at the state level. Even with Scalia there, there was no desire to take on these decisions. Reasonable restrictions clearly can be seen as including anything more than a double barrel shotgun and SW Model 10 for home defense. There was hope that the court would take these on but there is even less of a chance now.

BTW, watching a friend shoot an IDPA match the other day with a pretty stock Model 10 - it would be hard to argue that Cletus needs a Glock 17. Let him practice. Zombie apocalypse - haha.

I've seen speculation that Scalia thought the other restrictions could be revisited later but that hasn't worked out as seen in his and Thomas' recent dissent on EBRs.

I think Federal level progress expanding gun rights on the SCOTUS level is out of the question for the foreseeable future. If Hillary is president they will attacked and weakened.

Damn, and I was just starting to like the fact that the Chicago handgun ban was struck down...if only more of the liberal SCOTUS bench believed in stare decisis :(

[Jeep]

The idea that Heller and McD are safe is raised sometimes. However, that is foolish. First, the Court does reconsider. Affirmative Action in colleges and various nuances of abortion rights keep on coming to the court. To overturn Roe v. Wade is out there all the time. Overturning the gun decisions is quite, quite possible.

The history of civil rights, segregation - decisions overturned as the sentiment of that time changed.

Second - local bans are quite popular nowadays as are encroachments based on increasingly vague mental health reporting at the state level. Even with Scalia there, there was no desire to take on these decisions. Reasonable restrictions clearly can be seen as including anything more than a double barrel shotgun and SW Model 10 for home defense. There was hope that the court would take these on but there is even less of a chance now.

BTW, watching a friend shoot an IDPA match the other day with a pretty stock Model 10 - it would be hard to argue that Cletus needs a Glock 17. Let him practice. Zombie apocalypse - haha.

I've seen speculation that Scalia thought the other restrictions could be revisited later but that hasn't worked out as seen in his and Thomas' recent dissent on EBRs.

I think Federal level progress expanding gun rights on the SCOTUS level is out of the question for the foreseeable future. If Hillary is president they will attacked and weakened.

I think this is exactly right. Nino Scalia did his part for the rest of us. We can't rely on the courts anymore so we have to win this on the ground. To that end, my local paper had a front page feature today on recent gun purchase in my deeply blue state. In the last two months alone enough background checks have been done that if it continues on an annual basis we would be able to arm 9% of the people in the state.

That is huge. In a deep blue state it is even bigger. It necessarily means that a LOT of Democrats are buying guns, and probably more than a few liberals as well. With those kinds of numbers we have the potential for a huge ground game on the issue. But we have to teach new shooters how to shoot responsibly and to take non-shooters shooting to get them over the media-created fear of firearms.

We can't rely on the courts anymore--it is up to us to create an overwhelming domestic consensus in favor of gun rights.

[Dagga Boy]

Kamella Harris is getting floated as a SCOTUS justice......kiss any semblance of what you think the 2nd Amendment says with her. If this is what the other side is looking at, I am glad I invested in revolvers as they will be the assault weapons of the future.

[Mitch]

Looks like it's time to start researching rape whistles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MGW]

I've seen Patricia Millett's name listed as a potential. Don't know much about her.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Tamara]

Kamella Harris is getting floated as a SCOTUS justice......

Even if the senate were truly as packed with flaccid RINOs as the worst of its detractors accuse, there is no way a nominee like that could get confirmed before primary season is over. They've got to appeal to the base for another few months to keep their phony baloney jobs.

Then, once the last primary is over, they'll have to start looking moderate and bipartisan to keep their phony baloney jobs. That's when it'll get dangerous.

[Willard]

Even if the senate were truly as packed with flaccid RINOs as the worst of its detractors accuse, there is no way a nominee like that could get confirmed before primary season is over. They've got to appeal to the base for another few months to keep their phony baloney jobs.

Then, once the last primary is over, they'll have to start looking moderate and bipartisan to keep their phony baloney jobs. That's when it'll get dangerous.

I'm kind of tracking with you, but not completely. OK...so primary is over, they show how fake they are and cave. What incentive does the base have to get out the vote against the demos? I mean if it isn't working, it isn't working...why bother?

[Jeep]

Kamella Harris is getting floated as a SCOTUS justice......kiss any semblance of what you think the 2nd Amendment says with her. If this is what the other side is looking at, I am glad I invested in revolvers as they will be the assault weapons of the future.

My guess is that the people floating Kamella Harris' name are trying to sideline her for the California Senate race. It's an old trick that sometimes works.

Sonia Sotomayor is an example. She was hated as a trial court judge. She was arrogant, lazy, rude and random. So she was bumped upstairs to the 2nd Circuit Court of appeals. She was apparently despised by her colleagues because she was impossible, and they pushed to get her promoted again. So, Obama, looking for a "wise Latina"--and not really caring about anything else--put her on the Supremes, which was loved by lawyers and judges in the 2nd Circuit because they got rid of her.

Anyway, my guess is that someone is trying to get rid of Harris.

[Tamara]

I'm kind of tracking with you, but not completely. OK...so primary is over, they show how fake they are and cave. What incentive does the base have to get out the vote against the demos? I mean if it isn't working, it isn't working...why bother?

I don't get it either, but it's become as ritualized as kabuki: "Look as radical as you can in the primaries (since it's only your own party you're appealing to) and then, should you win, suddenly veer toward the center in the general election, to claim the allegedly huge "undecided moderate" vote."

[Wobblie]

I don't get it either, but it's become as ritualized as kabuki: "Look as radical as you can in the primaries (since it's only your own party you're appealing to) and then, should you win, suddenly veer toward the center in the general election, to claim the allegedly huge "undecided moderate" vote."
It's easy for a tea party crazy to get nominated by his fellow crazies. In most places, not here in Florida, you have to at least appear less crazy to win the election. Believe it or not there are moderate voters who are turned off by lunatics running for office. Again, this does not apply to Florida.

[Wondering Beard]

There's a lot more room for crazy nowadays.

[11B10]

As several have said, it is now, more than ever, up to us - but then, hasn't it always really been "up to us?"

[45dotACP]

As several have said, it is now, more than ever, up to us - but then, hasn't it always really been "up to us?"

It has for a while...we knew this day was coming, and we knew this years POTUS election has some pretty big stakes...next pres gets to pick what...3 justices...better make them good. We've got to take this to the wall.

[Dagga Boy]

As several have said, it is now, more than ever, up to us - but then, hasn't it always really been "up to us?"

It is. "Us" put Obama into office twice. "Us" is why he gets to put another activist on the Supreme Court. I actually have no issue with Obama nominating a Justice, because that is what the Constitution says he should do, and the Senate should do its job as the Constitution says. The problem is "the US" many here are talking about is not the majority of Americans anymore. Those are disconnected idiots, people who want government to take care of them, and will want Supreme Court justices who are political activists. Sad state.

[SeriousStudent]

Soooooooooo......

When Senator Barack Obama was one of the 25 Democratic Senators to filibuster Samuel Alito's nomination to the US Supreme Court - that was "different".

Because that was when that wretched George W. Bush was President.

It's all so clear to me now.

[GardoneVT]

Kamala Harris is black,female, and from a Leftist population center that's a major Democrat area of influence. That makes her as politically bulletproof as they come.

Anything the GOP says against her nomination, regardless of the factual merits, will be spun as Old Racist White Dudes Obstructing Progress. It would come to a choice between spending GOP political capital blocking her nomination versus saving it for the White House run.

I actually want her to be appointed. Crazy? Here's the logic.
It would be a lot less damaging long term to gun rights then her landing in the US Senate, or the Vice Presidency, both places where she can do damage far more immediately. In the SCOTUS she is in a reactionary role, and we don't lose much as no matter what Obama will sooner resign then appoint an NRA member to that bench. An anti gunner is going in that seat no matter what. May as well use it as a career parking space, so to speak.

[David S.]

Soooooooooo......

When Senator Barack Obama was one of the 25 Democratic Senators to filibuster Samuel Alito's nomination to the US Supreme Court - that was "different".

Because that was when that wretched George W. Bush was President.

It's all so clear to me now.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

That may be the way the game is played (by both sides). That doesn't make it legit or constitutional.

[PPGMD]

Don't outright block, take a slow plodding course. Schedule the hearings for a couple of months from now, take a couple of week long recesses. Pass the person through the committee to the floor.

Well now you get the summer recess, do the same on the floor of the senate schedule the debate a couple of months from then, run then out as long as possible.

Then when the election happens go "Well the administration is going to change, we should let the next President pick this justice."

[LSP552]

Kamala Harris is black,female, and from a Leftist population center that's a major Democrat area of influence. That makes her as politically bulletproof as they come.

Anything the GOP says against her nomination, regardless of the factual merits, will be spun as Old Racist White Dudes Obstructing Progress. It would come to a choice between spending GOP political capital blocking her nomination versus saving it for the White House run.

I actually want her to be appointed. Crazy? Here's the logic.
It would be a lot less damaging long term to gun rights then her landing in the US Senate, or the Vice Presidency, both places where she can do damage far more immediately. In the SCOTUS she is in a reactionary role, and we don't lose much as no matter what Obama will sooner resign then appoint an NRA member to that bench. An anti gunner is going in that seat no matter what. May as well use it as a career parking space, so to speak.

Sorry, but IMO, adding one more liberal Senator is nothing compared to having a liberal majority on the Supreme Court.

[GardoneVT]

Sorry, but IMO, adding one more liberal Senator is nothing compared to having a liberal majority on the Supreme Court.

That liberal majority was assured the second Justice Scalia passed away. Whether it's Harris or someone else,an anti gun liberal WILL sit in that chair. Better Justice Harris then President of the United States Harris down the road.

[Drang]

That liberal majority was assured the second Justice Scalia passed away. Whether it's Harris or someone else,an anti gun liberal WILL sit in that chair. Better Justice Harris then President of the United States Harris down the road.

Well, aren't you just a little ball of sunshine!

[JAD]

That liberal majority was assured the second Justice Scalia passed away. Whether it's Harris or someone else,an anti gun liberal WILL sit in that chair. Better Justice Harris then President of the United States Harris down the road.

So you presume, I guess, that even if the Senate won't confirm Obama's nom, and a Republican wind in November, that said future POTUS will nominate an anti gun liberal?

I'm not sure I disagree, just checking my understanding.

[GardoneVT]

So you presume, I guess, that even if the Senate won't confirm Obama's nom, and a Republican wind in November, that said future POTUS will nominate an anti gun liberal?

I'm not sure I disagree, just checking my understanding.
A true Republican would first have to run for office.

[Rick_ICT]

That liberal majority was assured the second Justice Scalia passed away. Whether it's Harris or someone else,an anti gun liberal WILL sit in that chair. Better Justice Harris then President of the United States Harris down the road.

So we might as well make the best of it and appoint the leftist to SCOTUS, because if we don't she's just going to eventually run for POTUS and of course she'll automatically be elected? Hell, why don't we just appoint her POTUS now and cut out all the in-between crap since it's already a given. :rolleyes:

I believe I'd rather risk a single vote in the House or Senate vs. rolling over on a 1 of 9 vote on the SCOTUS.

[HCM]

Kamala Harris is black,female, and from a Leftist population center that's a major Democrat area of influence. That makes her as politically bulletproof as they come.


I worked in SF when Harris ran for and was DA. She is far from Bullet proof. What flies at the Municipal and state level will come out at the national level.

[GardoneVT]

I worked in SF when Harris ran for and was DA. She is far from Bullet proof. What flies at the Municipal and state level will come out at the national level.

Excellent. She'll be DQd for national office as the political poo-flinging begins.

Scratch one anti.

Even if she's appointed, it makes little difference in the aggregate. That SCOTUS seat won't go to a conservative candidate so long as Obama is in office.

[GMSweet]

Riffing a bit on what Nyeti said, the problem is us. The currently elected Governors, Senators, Representatives, and President by and large disregard the constitution. We need to elect Governors who look squarely at the 10th amendment and tell the federal government "no way, education of our children wasn't granted to you, we're taking it back." We need to remind our Congress that they have to take the constitution into account when drafting and and presenting bills; no more passing something and then waiting for the courts to figure it out. If only constitutional bills are written, then then only constitutional laws are passed.

I know some of you are single issue voters, I'm not. The first, second, fourth, fifth, ninth, and tenth amendments are getting blotted out more and more each day. What I appreciated about Scalia was his willingness to look at a legal document and discover what the founders meant. The English language has been diminished over the years and modern meanings applied to old documents drastically change to outcomes. For example, the word regulate used to mean " to make regular" and today most view is as " to control". When applied to the interstate commerce clause, it changes the way laws are written. I encourage everyone to get a copy of Webster's first dictionary and use it when reviewing old documents; it's quite eye-opening.

I believe our founders were in many ways far more intelligent and wise than we are today. They weren't perfect, no one is, but they understood the true nature of mankind and sought to make sure a limited government was developed with checks and balances to prevent the coming abuse of power. Unfortunately, the majority of the nation now views the president as that of a monarchy whom dictates policy to the congress and the courts. We the people need to care about the constitution as much as the politicians.

For a little while, there were only two candidates running that might work to restore constitutional power in the Oval Office and Rand Paul has dropped out. I'm hoping Cruz straightens out his message and can get the nomination.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Jeep]

Very well said.

[LittleLebowski]

Obama is not attending Scalia's funeral (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384).

[JV_]

Having read a bit about what Scalia's thoughts are on funerals, and the way Obama makes everything about him, I think that's for the best.

[Gray222]

Obama is not attending Scalia's funeral (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384).

This is my surprised face.

[JV_]

Having read a bit about what Scalia's thoughts are on funeralshttp://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/antonin-scalia-christian/

[Drang]

Obama is not attending Scalia's funeral (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384).

I would like to think that this is Obama trying to do the right thing, but it's Obama, so fat chance.

[Jeep]

Obama generally thinks that doing the right thing means doing the left thing--and a whole bunch of lefties have been dancing in the streets about Scalia's death.

[JV_]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0FiMW4oVW8

[RJ]

Obama is not attending Scalia's funeral (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/obama-no-scalia-funeral-219384).

This irks me. A lot. I am not sure quite why.

Maybe I grew up in an environment where we looked to our leaders to capture the best of our generation. Maybe I saw giants the likes of King and Kennedy, and thought, you know, as I get older in life, I expect my leadership to bring the country together in times of sorrow.

Would it have taken all that much to go the funeral tomorrow, and just say a few words to the country about one of the most respected Justices in the land?

Justice Scalia deserves it. The country could use it. I would appreciate it.

I have never been so disappointed in my President than today.

[JV_]

Obama is incapable of saying a few words about our country, and Scalia, without making it about him. It would be a 10 minute speech and he'd use the words Me and I 300 times.

I'm glad he didn't go.

[JAD]

A friend of Scalia (I heard on npr) who works at the White House said that o was concerned about his security footprint.

I partially agree with the thought expressed above that Scalia might not want him there, but am swayed by the penultimate paragraph of scalia's letter -- Obama is certainly one of those who most needs to hear the good news.

[JV_]

Obama is certainly one of those who 'most needs to hear the good news.'Agreed.

[RJ]

Obama is incapable of saying a few words about our country, and Scalia, without making it about him. It would be a 10 minute speech and he'd use the words Me and I 300 times.

I'm glad he didn't go.

Instead we get Jar Jar Binks (h/t Dennis Miller). Geebus.

[11B10]

It is. "Us" put Obama into office twice. "Us" is why he gets to put another activist on the Supreme Court. I actually have no issue with Obama nominating a Justice, because that is what the Constitution says he should do, and the Senate should do its job as the Constitution says. The problem is "the US" many here are talking about is not the majority of Americans anymore. Those are disconnected idiots, people who want government to take care of them, and will want Supreme Court justices who are political activists. Sad state.


Nyeti - I'm sure you "got" what my intent was - the "us' in this country that SHOULD getting it done - hasn't - for quite sometime, preferring to be led like sheep by entirely the wrong people for entirely the wrong reasons. The "greatest generation" and the ethics and morals they perpetuated are nearly forgotten. My Father used to tell us he always wanted us to have it easier than he did. Well, they made things too easy for the majority of the boomers - causing us (yes, I'm one of them) to always seek the easy way out. I believe all of us 'got it' too late, causing me to now believe the 'us' that should've been achieving things all along thinks it is not capable of building and sustaining the effort needed to do it anymore.

Gvt - I, too, believe you've got it wrong. Just do the numbers - 1 out of 535 in Congress vs. 1 out of 9 on the SCOTUS. IMHO, you are underestimating the damage someone like Harris could do in the short term once seated in the Supreme Court.

To all here - this country is still the best in the world and is worth sacrificing whatever it takes to make it what it once was. The Founding Fathers thought so, all the folks who paid the ultimate price in the wars thought so - so should we!

[Dagga Boy]

Nyeti - I'm sure you "got" what my intent was - the "us' in this country that SHOULD getting it done - hasn't - for quite sometime, preferring to be led like sheep by entirely the wrong people for entirely the wrong reasons. The "greatest generation" and the ethics and morals they perpetuated are nearly forgotten. My Father used to tell us he always wanted us to have it easier than he did. Well, they made things too easy for the majority of the boomers - causing us (yes, I'm one of them) to always seek the easy way out. I believe all of us 'got it' too late, causing me to now believe the 'us' that should've been achieving things all along thinks it is not capable of building and sustaining the effort needed to do it anymore.

Gvt - I, too, believe you've got it wrong. Just do the numbers - 1 out of 535 in Congress vs. 1 out of 9 on the SCOTUS. IMHO, you are underestimating the damage someone like Harris could do in the short term once seated in the Supreme Court.

To all here - this country is still the best in the world and is worth sacrificing whatever it takes to make it what it once was. The Founding Fathers thought so, all the folks who paid the ultimate price in the wars thought so - why don't we?

Note that I said the senate should do its job per the Constitution. I have an idea about what they should do.....we'll see.

When you speak of the Greatest Generation, it is totally in alignment with my thoughts of our decline. When Bill Clinton (dope smoking draft dodger married to a radical) was elected over Bob Dole.....that to me was when it was all over for this country and the ideals I was raised on by a whole bunch of greatest generation family, mentors, and hero's.

No one despises Kamella Harris and her ilk more than me....I would not confirm her, but I do believe that Constitutionally the President could nominate her and I have no problems when the Constitution is followed.....for a change.

[JV_]

While I think losing a seat to an Obama pick would have huge impacts, it's very likely that the next POUTS will get at least one pick, possibly two.

I sincerely hope it's not Trump, Sanders or Clinton making those next appointments.

[11B10]

Note that I said the senate should do its job per the Constitution. I have an idea about what they should do.....we'll see.

When you speak of the Greatest Generation, it is totally in alignment with my thoughts of our decline. When Bill Clinton (dope smoking draft dodger married to a radical) was elected over Bob Dole.....that to me was when it was all over for this country and the ideals I was raised on by a whole bunch of greatest generation family, mentors, and hero's.

No one despises Kamella Harris and her ilk more than me....I would not confirm her, but I do believe that Constitutionally the President could nominate her and I have no problems when the Constitution is followed.....for a change.


Note that I edited my final words to read: "So should we." Guess you were already typing! I share your timeline as to when things really began to slide. I was only slightly surprised when Clinton got elected, but when he got reelected I went off - America, you LIKED those four years? And, as if we needed any further proof, America elects sfb obama, only to reelect him as well! Reminds me of "Scarface:" "you want some more, eh?" We must do all we can to encourage proper Constitutional procedure - now more than ever.

[JAD]

Instead we get Jar Jar Binks (h/t Dennis Miller). Geebus.

Honestly, I like JB's character and think he would have made a better president than Obama (or HRC, or the Communist would). He's a committed (though cafeteria) Catholic and his presence at a funeral mass is ok with me.

[LittleLebowski]

Apt..

6033

[rsa-otc]

There was no reason why Obama couldn't have attended the Funeral to pay his respects without speaking. Instead we attend the "Black Lives Matter" conference and comend them on the excellent job they are doing. Color me disgusted. For the millionth time I might add.

[11B10]

Apt..

6033




^^^^ perfect

[LittleLebowski]

There was no reason why Obama couldn't have attended the Funeral to pay his respects without speaking. Instead we attend the "Black Lives Matter" conference and comend them on the excellent job they are doing. Color me disgusted. For the millionth time I might add.

Yup. I have regular talks with Uncle Pat (http://www.eagtactical.com/abouteag.asp) about this. When a retired Vietnam Marine and a retired NYPD detective tells me that the country has never been so divided in his lifetime, I listen. Obama has really set this country back.

[Dagga Boy]

Come on, the President spent less than two minutes at the wake, I mean how much time does he normally give for these things. You folks act like he has eulogized a KKK leader in the past or something. Oh wait, nevermind.

[RJ]

Just listened to the homily by Rev. Paul Scalia at today's service.

I'm a Christian, not Catholic but dang that was a good speech. Presidential, even...:cool:

[JV_]

It's pretty cool to watch Fr. Paul offer the funeral mass for his father. I appreciated that he read from the letter that I linked to earlier, about his father's view on state funerals.



he has eulogized a KKK leader in the past or somethingAn exalted cyclops....

[Dagga Boy]

An exalted cyclops....

Who filibustered the Civil Rights Act....

[RJ]

Honestly, I like JB's character and think he would have made a better president than Obama (or HRC, or the Communist would). He's a committed (though cafeteria) Catholic and his presence at a funeral mass is ok with me.

I'm with ya. No issue with Joe being there, of course.

Sigh.

What a missed opportunity for Obama to polish his halo.

History will treat him like a Presidential dwarf. And his choice today of not attending the funeral is a good example of why.

[Wondering Beard]

Liberal Lawyer Who Clerked for Scalia Sings His Praise (https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/02/19/liberal-lawyer-who-clerked-for-scalia-sings-his-praise/)

[JV_]

Liberal Lawyer Who Clerked for Scalia Sings His Praise (https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/02/19/liberal-lawyer-who-clerked-for-scalia-sings-his-praise/)

What a great read, thanks for posting it.

[Chance]

Some interesting speculation about what a liberal appointment to the Supreme Court could mean for gun rights. From the New York Post (http://nypost.com/2016/02/17/what-it-means-for-gun-rights-if-scalias-replacement-is-a-liberal/):


By embracing Breyer’s reasoning, which tolerates wide variation in gun controls based on local conditions, a new majority of Democratic appointees could approve whatever restrictions come their way while still claiming to respect Second Amendment rights. That is essentially the position taken by Barack Obama and the two Democrats vying to replace him, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

Politics would once again be the main constraint on gun laws, meaning that jurisdictions like D.C. and Chicago would once again be free to ban handguns. In other words, the most likely short-term consequence of adding another Democratic nominee to the Supreme Court is that Democrats would succeed in disarming their own constituents.

Granted, that's "short term"....

[RJ]

Yeah, to paraphrase Lt Frank Drebbin, there is a 50 / 50 chance of SCOTUS becoming a liberal court, but only a 10% chance of me moving to Chicago, NJ, or CA. :cool:

Right now, if we ever left FL, it'd probably be for Texas. Hell, I already have a pick-up...:)

[Rick_ICT]

So up on Drudge right now is a link that says "Obama cracks joke about Scalia's death". I clicked on it, forgetting that Drudge has developed a very nasty habit of linking to Alex "does this tinfoil hat make me look nuts?" Jones' Infowars website.

Alas, since I was already there, I watched the video clip. It purports to be from a speech Obama gave to the National Governors Association on Monday. Sure enough, he makes a remark to the governors, who "may be in the final year of their terms, getting things done for the people they represent, fixing roads...etc...appointing judges <big s**t eating grin>, the usual stuff." Which evidently cracked a few of the attendees up and got an even bigger s**t eating grin from the elder statesman himself.

I was disgusted, but not terribly shocked I suppose. I refuse to link to anything Alex Jones has been within 100 miles of, and feel the need to wash my eyeballs for just having seen his site, but I was able to find the video at C-Span. Go to about 3:30, remark is just after 4:00. Come on January 20, 2017.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?405103-1/president-obama-remarks-national-governors-association

[RJ]

^^^ This is my shocked face.