Author Topic: Scalia (Read 55614 times)

CNS · « **Reply #700 on:** March 16, 2016, 12:12:31 PM »

regardless of who gets in office, there is no threat to the second amendment.

Good grief.

Ptolemy · « **Reply #701 on:** March 16, 2016, 12:22:02 PM »

Quote from: CNS on March 16, 2016, 12:12:31 PM

regardless of who gets in office, there is no threat to the second amendment.

Good grief.

Heller was 5-4.

From Breyer's dissent: "...there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision

chuckjames · « **Reply #702 on:** March 16, 2016, 12:23:11 PM »

Quote from: Ptolemy on March 16, 2016, 12:22:02 PM

Quote from: CNS on March 16, 2016, 12:12:31 PM
regardless of who gets in office, there is no threat to the second amendment.

Good grief.

Heller was 5-4.

From Stevens' dissent: "...there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision

star seed 7 · « **Reply #703 on:** March 16, 2016, 12:32:30 PM »

The second amendment isn't going anywhere, chicken little

treysolid · « **Reply #704 on:** March 16, 2016, 02:10:08 PM »

what about the 1st amendment, ptolemy? Trump wants to get rid of it so he can sue journalists who write mean articles about him.

Ptolemy · « **Reply #705 on:** March 16, 2016, 02:22:36 PM »

Quote from: treysolid on March 16, 2016, 02:10:08 PM

what about the 1st amendment, ptolemy? Trump wants to get rid of it so he can sue journalists who write mean articles about him.

That one's easy. Presidents do not write legislation and nobody in Congress would "open up libel laws."

CNS · « **Reply #706 on:** March 16, 2016, 02:31:03 PM »

So, there is very little a pres can do about one amendment, but not the other. Hmmm.

ednksu · « **Reply #707 on:** March 16, 2016, 02:41:55 PM »

Is Ptolemy Bob Strawn? JFC what a mess of posting.

8manpick · « **Reply #708 on:** March 16, 2016, 02:43:56 PM »

Ptolemy · « **Reply #709 on:** March 16, 2016, 03:50:26 PM »

Quote from: CNS on March 16, 2016, 02:31:03 PM

So, there is very little a pres can do about one amendment, but not the other. Hmmm.

While you're thinking, look up Supreme Court cases where they have tried to take away a person's freedom of speech. I have already shown you one where they attempt to remove the right to keep and bear arms.

CNS · « **Reply #710 on:** March 16, 2016, 03:56:31 PM »

The only ppl not thinking, sock, are the dumbasses who think the second amendment is in actual jeopardy.

Institutional Control · « **Reply #711 on:** March 16, 2016, 04:32:57 PM »

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MakeItRain · « **Reply #712 on:** March 16, 2016, 06:12:02 PM »

Quote from: Batt BcKee on March 16, 2016, 04:32:57 PM

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why are republicans acting like the next president won't be replacing at least two more justices? Did we replace all the old people with fourtysomethings while I was on vacation?

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #713 on:** March 16, 2016, 10:01:19 PM »

Obama has been lame duck for 6+ years. Not sure why they let him appoint anyone at all.

TheHamburglar · « **Reply #714 on:** March 16, 2016, 10:12:42 PM »

Quote from: MakeItRain on March 16, 2016, 06:12:02 PM

Quote from: Batt BcKee on March 16, 2016, 04:32:57 PM

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why are republicans acting like the next president won't be replacing at least two more justices? Did we replace all the old people with fourtysomethings while I was on vacation?

This made me curious and found a couple things:

1. Thomas is only 67. I didn't realize he was so young when nominated.
2. Roberts is younger than Sotomayor.

Ptolemy · « **Reply #715 on:** March 17, 2016, 12:07:47 AM »

I love the hypocrisy when Obama says that supreme court nominees/approvals should not be political.

If they weren't supposed to be political, they wouldn't be assigned to a president.

star seed 7 · « **Reply #716 on:** March 17, 2016, 12:20:01 AM »

That's a great point

puniraptor · « **Reply #717 on:** March 17, 2016, 11:42:00 PM »

I love how The Big O took a dump on Pat's Robert face by nominating a candidate he supported in the past.

bones129 · « **Reply #718 on:** March 17, 2016, 11:48:10 PM »

Quote from: puniraptor on March 17, 2016, 11:42:00 PM

I love how The Big O took a dump on Pat's Robert face by nominating a candidate he supported in the past.

Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) · « **Reply #719 on:** March 18, 2016, 08:51:53 AM »

They should consider him, and do with him what they want.

Another circuit court judge

Ptolemy · « **Reply #720 on:** March 18, 2016, 10:42:39 AM »

Quote from: bones129 on March 17, 2016, 11:48:10 PM

Quote from: puniraptor on March 17, 2016, 11:42:00 PM
I love how The Big O took a dump on Pat's Robert face by nominating a candidate he supported in the past.

This clown judge was nominated for the Supreme Court previously?

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #721 on:** March 18, 2016, 10:47:30 AM »

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/16/the_republicans_who_voted_for_merrick_garland_in_1997_are_against_him_now.html

Cartierfor3 · « **Reply #722 on:** March 18, 2016, 10:49:01 AM »

Where should the line be for nominating or letting the next pres do it? Like, if a justice died on October 15th of an election year, I'd say yeah just wait for the next pres, but if he died 16 months before the election, the sitting pres makes more sense to nominate.

I put the line at 8 months before inauguration, so anyone who dies before June 20, current pres gets to nominate.

Thoughts?

Rage Against the McKee · « **Reply #723 on:** March 18, 2016, 10:51:13 AM »

Quote from: Cartierfor3 on March 18, 2016, 10:49:01 AM

Where should the line be for nominating or letting the next pres do it? Like, if a justice died on October 15th of an election year, I'd say yeah just wait for the next pres, but if he died 16 months before the election, the sitting pres makes more sense to nominate.

I put the line at 8 months before inauguration, so anyone who dies before June 20, current pres gets to nominate.

Thoughts?

I'd put it at 1 or 2 months. If the president has time to do his job, he should do it.

Cartierfor3 · « **Reply #724 on:** March 18, 2016, 10:52:14 AM »

yeah but by late summer/early fall of an election year a bunch of congress and all of the House is out campaigning too. June 20 is a great line I think. Completely fair.