Justice Kennedy to retire, Trump can solidify court's conservative majority

Elections have consequences. Just think what a Court with Merrick Garland and a pick from HRC on it would look like.

I knew that was coming. My only comment is that I hope Kennedy's replacement is a 2A supporter and I'm done.

Sistema1927 said:

Elections have consequences. Just think what a Court with Merrick Garland and a pick from HRC on it would look like.

Click to expand...

+1

RKBA got lucky with Gorsuch. Roberts is still very much an unknown quantity in many cases. For that matter, so is Kagan, voting a few times with the conservatives.

Let’s hope we get lucky again with Kennedy’s replacement and also get a replacement for Ginsburg before 2020.

I hope we get a pro-2A justice, but more importantly I hope we get another originalist.

The RTKBA is just one of our rights that have been gutted to the point where they are almost non-existent. Hopefully a more rights oriented justice will help swing it back the other way.

Sistema1927 said:

Elections have consequences. Just think what a Court with Merrick Garland and a pick from HRC on it would look like.

Click to expand...

Agreed ! Every time I think about what almost happened, that thought gives me a cold, clammy feeling.

Chuck Schumer stated today that peoples' rights are at risk because of the retirement of Chief Justice Kennedy. Apparently he believes that people have "the right" to deny others their Constitutional rights , the Right To Bear Arms being a real good place to start.

As stated , elections have consequences. In this case , we get to keep the Constitution- AND our firearms!

Before I add to this thread let me say something nice about Ruth Bader Ginsberg: I always found it inspiring how RBG and Scalia could disagree so much and still be close friends and be able to debate and argue their points with facts. Both of them. I wish we had more of that from both sides of our country.

That being said, she’s getting up there in age too and when she retires I hope it’s with someone who will strongly protect our 2A rights.

While I understand the Liberterian viewpoint, just remember the consequences when someone with a “D” beside their name gets in. Even if a dem was A+ on 2A, they still vote in their committee chairman (Pelosi or Schumer)

Big picture

I hope we get a pro-2A justice, but more importantly I hope we get another originalist.

Click to expand...

Be careful how "originalist" a justice you ask for. You might get one that says the 2A only protects the rights of land-owning white males between the ages of 21 and 65 to own matchlock and flintlock black powder guns.

hdwhit said:

Be careful how "originalist" a justice you ask for. You might get one that says the 2A only protects the rights of land-owning white males between the ages of 21 and 65 to own matchlock and flintlock black powder guns.

Click to expand...

Wouldn’t that be a hoot!

I would like a Justice who would answer the question about what level of scrutiny should apply to laws that limit or curtail the right to keep and bear arms with the answer "strict scrutiny." That the 2nd amendment is an individual right is now pretty settled law, but the question of what level of test an infringement of that right gets is still open... and where the rubber really hits the road. If the test is just "rational basis," as many judges ruling post-Heller have decided, then the right is more or less meaningless.

This means that Chief Justice Roberts will now become the swing vote. It's unclear where exactly he stands on the 2nd Amendment. We do know that if he has a bias, it's in favor of the institutions of government, particularly the Supreme Court itself. To protect the standing of the Court, he won't get too far ahead of public opinion (by contradicting the legislatures, for example). The big 2nd Amendment issue that is likely to arise is the constitutionality of "assault weapon" bans. I have the feeling that Roberts would vote to uphold such bans.

We need one more pro-2nd vote (beyond Kennedy's replacement) before bringing such a case before the Court.

ATLDave said:

I would like a Justice who would answer the question about what level of scrutiny should apply to laws that limit or curtail the right to keep and bear arms with the answer "strict scrutiny."

Click to expand...

And also, that the 2nd Amendment is "incorporated," as against the states, under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment instead of under Substantive Due Process. So far, Justice Thomas is the only one that has taken that position.

AlexanderA said:

And also, that the 2nd Amendment is "incorporated," as against the states, under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment instead of under Substantive Due Process. So far, Justice Thomas is the only one that has taken that position.

Click to expand...

I thought that was settled in McDonald vs Chicago, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago .

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" is protected under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Click to expand...

ilbob said:

The RTKBA is just one of our rights that have been gutted to the point where they are almost non-existent. Hopefully a more rights oriented justice will help swing it back the other way.

Click to expand...

Really? I own a room full of guns and carry a loaded handgun almost everywhere I go. I agree that there are some things like NFA I would like to see go away, but I would hardly call the current state of my gun rights “almost non-existent .”

redneck2 said:

While I understand the Liberterian viewpoint, just remember the consequences when someone with a “D” beside their name gets in. Even if a dem was A+ on 2A, they still vote in their committee chairman (Pelosi or Schumer)

Click to expand...

There’s no committee chair on SCOTUS. They can’t threaten to withhold campaign money. Party is irrelevant, beliefs are what matter here. I would rather have a blue dog Alabama D that’s pro 2A than a Connecticut R who thinks guns are icky.

AlexanderA said:

This means that Chief Justice Roberts will now become the swing vote. It's unclear where exactly he stands on the 2nd Amendment.....We need one more pro-2nd vote (beyond Kennedy's replacement) before bringing such a case before the Court.

Click to expand...

Optimistically, RBG is in her mid ‘80’s and probably ready to throw in the towel. AlexanderA, you just might get your wish.

Sistema1927 said:

Elections have consequences. Just think what a Court with Merrick Garland and a pick from HRC on it would look like.

Click to expand...

No thanks
I already have enough nightmares

I do pray thank you everyday that we didn’t have both houses, the president and the SC run by those who don’t respect the Constitution.

If Ginsburg would decide to retire within the next 2 years that would be the one that would make the biggest difference for 2A.

I just want to see a Justice that is pro USA, isn’t an activist, is pro Constitution, and understands our history and laws.

So, yes that would imply that they would be strong on personal liberty and freedom.

Elkins45 said:

here’s no committee chair on SCOTUS. They can’t threaten to withhold campaign money. Party is irrelevant, beliefs are what matter here. I would rather have a blue dog Alabama D that’s pro 2A than a Connecticut R who thinks guns are icky.

Click to expand...

That’s the kind of thinking that will cost our guns. Committee chairs are determined by the party in power. The committee chair determines what bills get voted on