President Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett as his 3rd SCOTUS judge

Status
Not open for further replies.
DustyGmt said:
I think restoring the rights of nonviolent offenders would be a huge step forward. I know alot of people who've made bad choices that are actually good people and dont believe that they should be forever stripped of a fundamental right. I have a friend who got into a brawl as a teen and the prosecutor hinged her case on the fact he was wearing steel toe work boots. He can never own a gun. I'm sure there are tons of cases like that, guy yelling at his girlfriend, one heated exchange away from a domestic barring you from ever owning a gun.

When did all this stuff get passed through the legislature anyway, it seems highly unconstitutional on its face.....
Click to expand...

This appears to be an idea that is gaining traction. A friend of mine just hosted a huge debate on his FB page, and most people sided with your position. I, for one, take the opposite stance. The laws in our nation are not that onerous, and it just isn't that difficult to stay within the lines. Loss of rights, social stigma, and that discrimination in the hiring process all just part of the consequences that come with committing a crime. Want to vote? Want to own guns? Want a chance at a good job?Simple. Don't commit crimes. I disagree with the notion that once a convicted person has "paid his or her debt to society" everything is a do-over.

Florida is now restoring voting rights to convicted felons. Let's game this out for a moment. People who couldn't follow the rules are now going to have a say in who makes the rules???? Given the vast number of incarcerated persons in America, if felons are allowed to vote, they will represent a significant voting bloc. Let that sink in. Defund the police you say? Why stop there? Let's also defund the "prison industrial complex" as well. We already have a problem maintaining basic internal security in this country; how long before this lawlessness becomes permanently entrenched?
 
D.B. Cooper said:
Asking a judge to recuse him or herself is a tall glass to fill That jurist would, in essence, be saying, I am not able to put personal issues aside and deal with this case on its own merits. That's not a person who is well suited to being a judge in the first place. Lacking demonstrably self-dealing or conflict of interest issues, I can't see any judge, at any level, recusing him or herself from a case.
Click to expand...
I agree on precedent but not as much in practice. At the level we are talking it would be astronomical odds of it ever happening, but I do know of judges who will recuse themselves due to personal relationships with an involved party, no matter which side of the coin said party is on. Usually it is not because they feel that they cannot be impartial and unbiased, but rather they don’t want to risk that being the perception. At the level of Supreme Court I can see a possible reason for recusal if a newly appointed judge is asked to hear a case where they have already heard, opined, and especially if they were the judge to write majority opinion or dissent.
 
Lol, we have seen this before. Releasing thousands of Felons right before election. And it is NOT about gaining back the 2nd amendment rights. It is all about Voting. And you know where that vote is going. And do not think all of these released Felons are choir boys that just happen to make a simple mistake. Come on. We just saw what happened when one was released.
 
D.B. Cooper said:
This appears to be an idea that is gaining traction. A friend of mine just hosted a huge debate on his FB page, and most people sided with your position. I, for one, take the opposite stance. The laws in our nation are not that onerous, and it just isn't that difficult to stay within the lines. Loss of rights, social stigma, and that discrimination in the hiring process all just part of the consequences that come with committing a crime. Want to vote? Want to own guns? Want a chance at a good job?Simple. Don't commit crimes. I disagree with the notion that once a convicted person has "paid his or her debt to society" everything is a do-over.
Click to expand...

I have more sympathy for the guy who gets in one heated exchange with a girlfriend and winds up taking a domestic than I do someone who has a slew of pretty theft and check fraud cases, the latter shows a pattern of bad judgement, the guy screaming or violating a no contact order or something to that effect I can identify more with. Not because I am that guy, i just know how easy it can be to get caught up for a moment and make a bad call and consider the fact that its fairly easy to wind up losing a precious, fundamental right. I know the two examples put before you arent great examples, but the line shouldn't exist where it does in my opinion. I mean loss of right for life is a pretty harsh sentance wouldnt you say? If you were having the worst day of your life and put your fist through a wall or some such thing during a bad breakup and police were called and you wound up taking a domestic charge would you feel there was any justice in that. You made one bad call, nobody was hurt but your sentance includes lifetime prohibition from firearms....

I think most of our type are lawful and have strong principles, following the law is important. I just believe the guidelines should be revisited or have a timer. If you got into a bar brawl at 21 and caught an assault or whatever, 10 years of clean record and no clear pattern of violent behavior should be taken into account. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn, but it should be considered.
 
D.B. Cooper said:
This appears to be an idea that is gaining traction. A friend of mine just hosted a huge debate on his FB page, and most people sided with your position. I, for one, take the opposite stance. The laws in our nation are not that onerous, and it just isn't that difficult to stay within the lines. Loss of rights, social stigma, and that discrimination in the hiring process all just part of the consequences that come with committing a crime. Want to vote? Want to own guns? Want a chance at a good job?Simple. Don't commit crimes. I disagree with the notion that once a convicted person has "paid his or her debt to society" everything is a do-over.

Florida is now restoring voting rights to convicted felons. Let's game this out for a moment. People who couldn't follow the rules are now going to have a say in who makes the rules???? Given the vast number of incarcerated persons in America, if felons are allowed to vote, they will represent a significant voting bloc. Let that sink in. Defund the police you say? Why stop there? Let's also defund the "prison industrial complex" as well. We already have a problem maintaining basic internal security in this country; how long before this lawlessness becomes permanently entrenched?
Click to expand...

The removal of the right of felons to self-defense via firearms was removed in 1968 with the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968. I say repeal the whole dang act and let the chips fall where they may.
 
D.B. Cooper said:
Well, let's see...hmmm.if you have such a problem with alcohol that you can't safely operate a vehicle (which is every bit as deadly as a firearm) hmmmm...why should you be allowed to have a firearm?
Click to expand...
Except in the cases of gross negligence or serious repeat offenses, even your driving PRIVILEGES are restored after a period of suspension. I would think we should hold a Constitutionally enumerated and protected RIGHT to a higher standard for revocation.
 
D.B. Cooper said:
Asking a judge to recuse him or herself is a tall glass to fill That jurist would, in essence, be saying, I am not able to put personal issues aside and deal with this case on its own merits. That's not a person who is well suited to being a judge in the first place. Lacking demonstrably self-dealing or conflict of interest issues, I can't see any judge, at any level, recusing him or herself from a case.
Click to expand...

I'd have to go look more carefully, but I thought this exact situation occurred to Gorsuch or Kavanaugh shortly after that joined SCOTUS.
 
DustyGmt said:
I have more sympathy for the guy who gets in one heated exchange with a girlfriend and winds up taking a domestic than I do someone who has a slew of pretty theft and check fraud cases, the latter shows a pattern of bad judgement, the guy screaming or violating a no contact order or something to that effect I can identify more with. Not because I am that guy, i just know how easy it can be to get caught up for a moment and make a bad call and consider the fact that its fairly easy to wind up losing a precious, fundamental right. I know the two examples put before you arent great examples, but the line shouldn't exist where it does in my opinion. I mean loss of right for life is a pretty harsh sentance wouldnt you say? If you were having the worst day of your life and put your fist through a wall or some such thing during a bad breakup and police were called and you wound up taking a domestic charge would you feel there was any justice in that. You made one bad call, nobody was hurt but your sentance includes lifetime prohibition from firearms....

I think most of our type are lawful and have strong principles, following the law is important. I just believe the guidelines should be revisited or have a timer. If you got into a bar brawl at 21 and caught an assault or whatever, 10 years of clean record and no clear pattern of violent behavior should be taken into account. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn, but it should be considered.
Click to expand...
Agreed on many points, but also disagree. I typically ride the fence though so I guess that’s typical for me. The situations described are easy to get into, and they do show a serious lapse of good judgement. I have always said that once a persons sentence is served that they are even with the state and they are even with society. They did their crime, they served the sentence, move on with life. Perhaps once the full duration of the sentence is served including probation or whatever else may be involved then rights should be restored. Even if there is a waiting period, set it in stone and let it be. Currently the legal cost for rights restoration is prohibitive for many folks so making it automatic at a given point in time seems to be a logical step. Even if a 3 strikes rule follows or something of the sort, but people need an avenue to follow with hope at the end of the tunnel, or else there is no hope and no reason to change.
 
sota said:
I'd have to go look more carefully, but I thought this exact situation occurred to Gorsuch or Kavanaugh shortly after that joined SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

It has happened over a hundred times that a Justice has recused themselves. Nothing unusual, but not commonly known. As such it won't be unusual for this Justice to recuse herself IF a case comes before the court that the Justices think pose a possible conflict. Since there appears to be no 2A history with her it won't be an issue we're concerned with.
 
D.B. Cooper said:
Asking a judge to recuse him or herself is a tall glass to fill That jurist would, in essence, be saying, I am not able to put personal issues aside and deal with this case on its own merits. That's not a person who is well suited to being a judge in the first place. Lacking demonstrably self-dealing or conflict of interest issues, I can't see any judge, at any level, recusing him or herself from a case.
Click to expand...
I can --- if it's an extraordinarily emotional and especially personal matter be in adjudicated. While I agree a good judge ought to have a wide and deep ability at looking at cases objectively, in a bizarre and unusual case, even the stoutest person might become emotionally strained.
Like, if a family member or loved one was involved, maybe some case in which the judge had strong beliefs on.
A good judge will "know his limitations" (to quote a movie hero) and remove himself from the case. Hopefully, this is a very rare situation.

I think it would be a bad judge who maintained authority in such a strained position.
 
Last edited:
Well, my life would have been seriously changed if my father had been allowed to regain his right to keep and bear arms after his (technically) non-violent crime.
He had been convicted for stealing a radio but his actual crime was fighting with his sergeant over a gambling debt... .
 
DustyGmt said:
I have more sympathy for the guy who gets in one heated exchange with a girlfriend and winds up taking a domestic than I do someone who has a slew of pretty theft and check fraud cases, the latter shows a pattern of bad judgement, the guy screaming or violating a no contact order or something to that effect I can identify more with. Not because I am that guy, i just know how easy it can be to get caught up for a moment and make a bad call and consider the fact that its fairly easy to wind up losing a precious, fundamental right. I know the two examples put before you arent great examples, but the line shouldn't exist where it does in my opinion. I mean loss of right for life is a pretty harsh sentance wouldnt you say? If you were having the worst day of your life and put your fist through a wall or some such thing during a bad breakup and police were called and you wound up taking a domestic charge would you feel there was any justice in that. You made one bad call, nobody was hurt but your sentance includes lifetime prohibition from firearms....

I think most of our type are lawful and have strong principles, following the law is important. I just believe the guidelines should be revisited or have a timer. If you got into a bar brawl at 21 and caught an assault or whatever, 10 years of clean record and no clear pattern of violent behavior should be taken into account. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn, but it should be considered.
Click to expand...
Learning to control emotion isn’t a difficult thing to do, should one have the desire to try. Someone who can’t control the most irrational of emotions, that being anger, isn’t someone we want with firearms. At any point in their life.
 
sota said:
Except in the cases of gross negligence or serious repeat offenses, even your driving PRIVILEGES are restored after a period of suspension.
Click to expand...
That "except" is significant, though. I knew someone who lost his driving privileges for life for repeat offenses, and I think it's a good thing. And I believe that he should never be allowed to own a firearm, based on his pattern of past behavior. You only get so many chances, and he blew all his.
 
Well, this is totally off topic. So closed. If she makes it and a 2nd Amend. issue comes up, we can have a new thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
President Trump to make Amy Coney Barrett his 3rd SCOTUS pick
Replies
12
Views
508
GEM
G
A
  • Locked
Potential new SCOTUS 2nd Amendment cases?
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
Robert
Robert
A
  • Locked
These Are Trump’s Two Top Picks For The Supreme Court
Replies
3
Views
474
Aim1
A
msmp5
  • Locked
Trump narrows SCOTUS pick to two...........
Replies
7
Views
861
GEM
G
A
  • Locked
Justice Kennedy to retire, Trump can solidify court's conservative majority
2 3 4 5
Replies
110
Views
6K
Robert
Robert
Back
Top