Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

[Glenn E. Meyer]

So many people in the gun world are all excited by this but:

1. Do we have evidence that any of these candidates really understands the RKBA to be forceful in the area? They might be OK with the old revolver in the underwear drawer model that drove Heller. Do they truly support an expansive view that voids the weapons and mag bans? Do they truly support eliminating oppressive carry laws in some states?

2. Roberts is an anti as is pretty clear. Can the five, hopefully expansive gun rights justices, out weight him to force cases to be taken or will they accede to his bias?

3. What are the priorities? Most of the rhetoric is for the new superduper court to go after abortion, Obama care, sexual orientation and religious liberty (so discrimination on sexuality is allowed). I haven't seen the GOP players jumping up and down to say that the 10 cases or best of them can immediately be taken up. They will fart around with the things I mentioned as there is no leadership fire in the belly for gun rights.

4. Do new cases have to be filed and go through a long process of lower courts? The old cases could be resubmitted but I've read precedent is against taking up previously rejected cases. So are we looking at many years as the Court leaps to issues I mentioned.

A senator said his one priority is Roe and it's overturning. Haven't heard one really say the prime objective is gun rights. That's a hint.

I did hear a NBC commentator say the left was worried that the court might decide on carrying guns outside the home. This is confusing as the vast majority of states have some form of shall issue. Was he just ignorant or speaking of the more restrictive may issue states or the emphasis on home defense in Heller being expanded to say the RKBA includes carry (which Heller did not)?

Trump was supposed to be the great defender of gun rights, why he even said so - but we have little to show from him besides rhetoric. Legislative solutions in his first two years were deliberately quashed. With a Biden presidency, do we really expect the Court to become activist on this issue?

Maybe Doc Brown and Marty can come back and tell us.

[luckyman]

So many people in the gun world are all excited by this but:

.... With a Biden presidency, do we really expect the Court to become activist on this issue?
.

I don’t want the court to become “activist” on ANY issue.

[Kukuforguns]

If I compromise the foundation of your home, it falls down. If I compromise your airway, you die. SOOOOO many people forget the other meaning of that word. Compromise is never an answer when it comes to principle, ever! If I win I get the trophy, If I lose, I try harder next time. The compromise you are speaking of means everyone gets something for participating. That sir is a flawed principle and never throughout history has it ever worked. YMMV

It's never worked?! Huh. What would you say is the most powerful nation in the world? Which nation has done more than any other nation in existence for promoting individual freedom? The largest economy? These United States of America? So glad we agree on that.

Did you know that the Constitution of these United States of America was the result of numerous compromises? The Bill of Rights was a compromise. The structure of the two houses of the Legislature was a compromise. Counting slaves and Native Americans as 5/8 of a person was a compromise. You know all of this. Which demonstrates how poorly conceived your statement was.

The worm will turn. The Democrats at some point in the future will have the Presidency and the Senate. When that day comes, I will very much desire that the filibuster acted as a brake on extremism. One of my mentors introduced me to a saying, "Perfect is the enemy of good." There has never been a perfect law passed by Congress. The Congress has passed many good laws that would never have been passed without sacrificing perfection. The Constitution is not perfect. It would never have been ratified without compromise.

The trick is identifying what you will not compromise. I drink cheap wine because I won't pay for the good stuff. I drink good beer - you can get world class beers for less than $20 per 750 ml bottle. So, yeah, sometimes I compromise quality for economy. Hell, I compromise all the time. But I bolted my home to its foundation.

[Kukuforguns]

1. Do we have evidence that any of these candidates really understands the RKBA to be forceful in the area? They might be OK with the old revolver in the underwear drawer model that drove Heller. Do they truly support an expansive view that voids the weapons and mag bans? Do they truly support eliminating oppressive carry laws in some states?

Some of the candidates on the list have a demonstrated belief in individual rights and the limits of government power. The RKBA is merely one subset of this dichotomy. Are we taking something of a crap shoot? Of course we are. But the status quo is not getting us anywhere. I'm rooting for Amy Coney Barrett. She's talked on multiple panels for the Federalist Society. Listen to her. If you like what you hear, support her.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

We've had plenty of general philosophy for years. What matters for the 2nd Amend. is not a speech at a forum but whether, when and how they act. The folks who do the legal planning, should be designing an action plan if a nomination goes through.

How long have we heard politicians spout their support for the 2nd Amendment and then scamper away from real action? Certainly after the two positive decisions Scotus did - probably due to Roberts.

So again, do they act after the candidate gets confirmed? Or 5 years from now, we will be reading about Kumquat vs. Mayberry which will the wonder case that turns everything around if we send a check.

[Kukuforguns]

4. Do new cases have to be filed and go through a long process of lower courts? The old cases could be resubmitted but I've read precedent is against taking up previously rejected cases. So are we looking at many years as the Court leaps to issues I mentioned.

There is a pipeline of RKBA cases. The Court could take up a RKBA case very shortly after a new justice is confirmed. Some Court-watchers/commentators believe the Court shies away from the most controversial issues for a time-period (i.e., one term) following the addition of a new justice.

Here's a list of cases put together by Everytown for Gun Safety.

Here's a list of cases put together by the Second Amendment Foundation (this list contains references to resolved cases).

And more lists.

[Bart Carter]

No points for guessing who said these quotes:

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president."

"Our view is this: Give the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy."

That is EXACTLY what happened. One of the reasons Trump was voted in by the people was to bring Constitutional judges back to the bench. The people, in fact, had their voice.

Mission accomplished.

[Bart Carter]

...McConnell was still wrong by not bringing a vote on Garland. He isn't someone I would want in the senate. He's Pelosi's twin.

The relevant text is the appointments clause of Article II, Section 2, which provides: “[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States…” This language makes the Senate’s consent a prerequisite to presidential appointments, but it does not place any duty on the Senate to act nor describe how it should proceed in its decision-making process. Even if the word “shall” in the clause is read as mandatory, “shall” refers only to things the president does. Instead, the Senate’s core role in appointments is as a check on the president, which it exercises by not giving consent—a choice it can make simply by not acting.

[RoyGBiv]

Some of the candidates on the list have a demonstrated belief in individual rights and the limits of government power. The RKBA is merely one subset of this dichotomy. Are we taking something of a crap shoot? Of course we are. But the status quo is not getting us anywhere. I'm rooting for Amy Coney Barrett. She's talked on multiple panels for the Federalist Society. Listen to her. If you like what you hear, support her.

I still like Ray Kethledge, but he's wrong-gendered for this moment.

I was unimpressed with what I've heard/read from Lagoa. No reason, just not moved.

I read Mike Lee (UT) is being considered. That would be awesomely awesome.

Imagine Ted Cruz on the SCOTUS. Bad choice currently, other than for the entertainment value.

[willie]

Ginsberg asserted that the 2nd Amendment referred to a collective right of a militia to bear arms. She stated that it's authors would have worded it otherwise if individual rights had been the concern. What is a rebuttal to her argument? I ask because I think this view will be emphasized.