StephenS1973

Are there any probable short/long term implications of Kavanaugh’s confirmation

51 posts in this topic

Nothing. Call me a pessimist. Go ahead. 

When Obama was president and the Democrats had the house, states couldn't even drug test for welfare without an emergency injuctions stopping it.

Compare that to Republicans having the house, Senate and presidency, yet can't even get things like National Reciprocity, let stop having places like NJ, NY, CA etc. Trample all over people's rights.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, mossburger said:

Nothing. Call me a pessimist. Go ahead. 

When Obama was president and the Democrats had the house, states couldn't even drug test for welfare without an emergency injuctions stopping it.

Compare that to Republicans having the house, Senate and presidency, yet can't even get things like National Reciprocity, let stop having places like NJ, NY, CA etc. Trample all over people's rights.

Truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If any gun cases get in front of the SCOTUS, it will go gun owners way. We now have a conservative majority of 5-4 for at least the next decade. If we get lucky, Trump will get to replace 2 more Justices with conservatives before he terms out. That would get us to a 7-2 majority. We would be covered for multiple decades.

Assualt Weapons Ban - will be struck down

Magazine Capacity restrictions - will be struck down

May Issue - will be struck down

And btw, I'm so not tired of winning. MAGA! And F...K  NJ.

 

9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, diamondd817 said:

If any gun cases get in front of the SCOTUS, it will go gun owners way. We now have a conservative majority of 5-4 for at least the next decade. If we get lucky, Trump will get to replace 2 more Justices with conservatives before he terms out. That would get us to a 7-2 majority. We would be covered for multiple decades.

Concur, I don’t see a downside 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I dunno where the negativity is here. We have 5 pretty pro gun justices now, all they have to do is accept the appeals and I can foresee a lot of gun laws getting over turned. Magazines and AWB will probably be the first. Carry could be a toss, but we should be able to make some considerable gains. 

@mossburgerThis has nothing to do with passing laws, this is about striking them down!

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, mossburger said:

So how many gun cases have they heard in ten years? Crickets....

Would you rather they had solidified shit decisions in the past 10 years? We barely thread the needle with Heller. 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THIS APPOINTMENT MAKES MIDTERM VOTER TURNOUT MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER!

 

The other side will be lined up around the block and we need to be there in force to strengthen the republican side. 

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Always with the negative waves Moriarity.... always with the negative waves”....🤪 ....Oddball..






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm worried about the midterms first before any of us can rejoice.   Having BK on the SC is a good step in the right direction, but if the Dem's gain any kind of power back next month in the house or senate we're screwed, I guessing it will be nothing but 2 years of nothing getting done and the dems doing nothing but working towards impeaching BK and Trump all leading into the 2020 elections.  Im hoping this bullshit with BK's confirmation enraged enough to wake up the red dragon for the midterms.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mossburger said:

So how many gun cases have they heard in ten years? Crickets....

The reality is, how many of ANY cases have they heard.

The SC is asked to argue like 8000 cases a year, but they only take on like 70 -80. The rest get sent down to the lower courts to handle. So in the big picture, the SC really only takes on a small percentage of important cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one change might be that lower courts will weigh the chances of a pro-constitution case making it to the SC in left leaning districts.   The Hawaii case being one of them,  When the 9th circuit re-hears it enbanc they might try to implement a strategy that will benefit neither side and try to shut it down there,   What they can do I don't know but be assured they will find it.

 The 3rd circuit and lower courts here for us will be doing the same .  Think about the magazine injunction,  will it benefit the Opfor to rule in our favor for "1" case or take a chance having it go all the way thus making the ruling the law of the land.

 As I said in my post about the Janus v. AFSCME case I'm sure we will now see the communists in trenton passing as many anti-american , anti-constitution  laws in "anticipation" of any SCOTUS ruling that is favorable to America.  https://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/10/lawsuit_filed_against_phil_murphy_seeks_to_help_nj.html

If someone wants to take the time to  read a copy of "Rules For Radicals" by saul alinsky ( Opfor's battle plans) I'm sure we would be able to dissect their strategy and get an idea.  

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, revenger said:

I think one change might be that lower courts will weigh the chances of a pro-constitution case making it to the SC in left leaning districts.   The Hawaii case being one of them,  When the 9th circuit re-hears it enbanc they might try to implement a strategy that will benefit neither side and try to shut it down there,   What they can do I don't know but be assured they will find it.

 The 3rd circuit and lower courts here for us will be doing the same .  Think about the magazine injunction,  will it benefit the Opfor to rule in our favor for "1" case or take a chance having it go all the way thus making the ruling the law of the land.

 As I said in my post about the Janus v. AFSCME case I'm sure we will now see the communists in trenton passing as many anti-american , anti-constitution  laws in "anticipation" of any SCOTUS ruling that is favorable to America.  https://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/10/lawsuit_filed_against_phil_murphy_seeks_to_help_nj.html

If someone wants to take the time to  read a copy of "Rules For Radicals" by saul alinsky ( Opfor's battle plans) I'm sure we would be able to dissect their strategy and get an idea.  

I had some similair throughts yesterday. If the 3rd effectively shuts down NJ's new magazine ban, they will prevent the major issue going to the highest court. The 3rd could throw us back to 15 rounds, but effectively prevent anything beyond that. The liberal courts are going to be stratagizing for the next decade, at least. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is time for us to start attacking on every front and every issue,  not just mag limits how about bayonet lugs, flash hiders, suppressors,  how many non-prohibited lawful constitutional following gun owners in NJ utilized a fixed bayonet to commit a crime,  I'll bet a years salary that the number of NJ politicians that committed felonies is higher.

How about transporting, hollow points, FFL out of your garage,  stand your ground.....the list is endless   

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

I had some similair throughts yesterday. If the 3rd effectively shuts down NJ's new magazine ban, they will prevent the major issue going to the highest court. The 3rd could throw us back to 15 rounds, but effectively prevent anything beyond that. The liberal courts are going to be stratagizing for the next decade, at least. 

Like dc. It’s up to the states to appeal a judgment favoring us.. There is merit to your line of thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sniper22 said:

The reality is, how many of ANY cases have they heard.

The SC is asked to argue like 8000 cases a year, but they only take on like 70 -80. The rest get sent down to the lower courts to handle. So in the big picture, the SC really only takes on a small percentage of important cases.

Seems like they had plenty of time to get birth control, gay marriage, and the all important cake case settled.

But hey, if false hope keeps you going, by all means. I'm just not giving any of my hard earned cash to people who end up benefiting from our opression. Nor am I holding out hope for something that simply will not happen.

I hope I'm dead wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lambo2936 said:

I unfortunately agree with mossy. The rights of tens of millions of gun owners have been regularly trampled on for YEARS, id say thats more important or just as important as cake. 

Interesting... and what burden or criteria do think the justices use to grant certiorari, in regards to the 2nd amendment of the constitution. Keeping in mind that the decision is final, and is the law for the land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cert is granted most often when there is opposing decisions from Appeals Courts. Meet have this in regards to 2A. Also granted when it is a crucial Constitutional issue. We have that with 2A. Cert was not granted because there was the fear of the Liberal Wing writing the majority opinion. It only takes 4 to grant cert. I think Thomas, Alito, and now Gorsuch are fed up with all the denials of Cert. If Cert is not granted for 2A cases going forward it is because Kavanaugh didn't vote for it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recommend listening to the 10/07 American Armed Radio podcast.  The guest in the first hour is Allen Gottlieb, head of the 2nd Amendment Foundation.  He has stated in the past, and mentioned again in the above podcast that:

You need four SCOTUS votes to grant cert but 5 to Win.  Ie "If you don't have the 5 votes to win, you won't get the 4 votes to grant cert."  As mentioned in prior posts, this is to not risk an unfavorable decision becoming the law of the land forever.

Hopefully, we will now start seeing 2A cases get Cert.   Mr. Gottleib also stated the SAF has two cases awaiting cert during the current SCOTUS calendar.  So they may the first ones to watch.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.