43 minutes ago, Kevin125 said:

If they want a fight they wish they didn’t start, they’ll keep heading down this road.

Who's going to be doing the fighting?

11 hours ago, revenger said:

Just how in the hell are they going to restructure it,    How about his Dems,  how about the republicans restrusture it.

A civil war would be the only way the courts can be changed

just go back to fdr and read about packing the court with his new deal programs.

Don't worry about packing the court. it takes a bill passed in the house, senate and Trump signing it, which would give him more justices. Ain't gonna happen, read this.

https://www.bustle.com/p/can-congress-change-the-number-of-supreme-court-justices-it-hasnt-always-been-nine-12219225

On 8/13/2019 at 1:21 PM, Mrs. Peel said:

Am I the only one who's still concerned about the composition of our current SCOTUS? It's better than it was a couple years ago, sure... but with wishy-washy Roberts at the helm, and Kavanaugh still being a bit of an intangible IMO, this case's potential outcome is still a crap shoot, I think. Are these judges strong enough to withstand the pressure? I'd feel so much better if there was a bigger pro-2A SCOTUS majority before a 2A case was even heard... but I realize there's never any guarantees of these things. 

Fingers crossed though!!!!

No your not.  I would be willing to wait a little while if it meant the court was sans RBG and someone stronger to counter the Wishie-washie waffling you're concerned about.    

 

 

On 8/13/2019 at 7:26 PM, kc17 said:

I'd say Congress needs to pay more attention to what the Public thinks of them and not what they say the Public thinks of SCOTUS.

I think the people need to pay attention.  With soon upcoming elections we can take back the house.  But people have to actually do it.  Apathy is the biggest enemy toward the reform we need.  Apathy is the liberal's best friend.

On 8/13/2019 at 5:05 PM, PDM said:

Just a hunch, but I think even the liberal justices must be PISSED that legislators are threatening the court if they don't rule the way they want.  This strong arm tactic could well backfire. 

RBG already came out and made a statement against packing the court already when it was just campaign trail talk.  She isn't stupid. She puts preserving Roe vs. Wade ahead of everything else, and knows that once court packing happens, then they stopp being independant and are just a party extension of whoever controls both houses and the oval office. 

Over the last 50 years, the parties are tied at 8 years a piece when that happened, but the R's have put up the wins more recently, AND for the last several presidents, when the R's haven't controlled all three, they have controlled the senate or the presidency. So... 

She's similarly against the notion that you can make a non lifetime appointment look like a lifetime appointment by moving the jsutice to another judge spot.. same reasons more or less. The Rs have had more opportunities to abuse the mechanism in the past, and there's no reason to think they won't in the future if that line is crossed. 

 

6 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

RBG already came out and made a statement against packing the court already when it was just campaign trail talk.  She isn't stupid. She puts preserving Roe vs. Wade ahead of everything else, and knows that once court packing happens, then they stopp being independant and are just a party extension of whoever controls both houses and the oval office. 

Over the last 50 years, the parties are tied at 8 years a piece when that happened, but the R's have put up the wins more recently, AND for the last several presidents, when the R's haven't controlled all three, they have controlled the senate or the presidency. So... 

She's similarly against the notion that you can make a non lifetime appointment look like a lifetime appointment by moving the jsutice to another judge spot.. same reasons more or less. The Rs have had more opportunities to abuse the mechanism in the past, and there's no reason to think they won't in the future if that line is crossed. 

 

All good points.  As much as we may not like the views of the 4 liberal justices, the Court is an institution that the Justices care about and from what I understand there is more collegiality and genuine respect and friendship among the justices than one might imagine.  RBG was supposedly very close to Scalia.  While the 4 liberals clearly don't agree with Heller, it is the law, and I think they care about the integrity of the Court and separation of powers.  I wouldn't expect any of them to side with the 5 (if we indeed have 5 in light of Roberts questionable stances) on 2A issues, BUT maybe, just maybe, this outrageous threat from this POS Sheldon Whitehouse, combined with NYC's blatant manipulation of the system by suddenly revising the law to moot the case could cause a backlash and we pick up another vote or 2 on NYC Rifle and Pistol.  And maybe Rodgers as well.  I  think that ass*&le Whitehouse, and Blumenthal and the others, seriously miscalculated.

23 minutes ago, PDM said:

RBG was supposedly very close to Scalia.

Scalia and Sotomyor were the close ones.

41 minutes ago, CMJeepster said:

Scalia and Sotomyor were the close ones.

Yeah, no.  Do a quick google search.  RBG joined the Court in 1993 and she and Scalia served together for 23 years until Scalia died in 2016.  Sotamayor joined in 2009.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/13/what-made-scalia-and-ginsburgs-friendship-work/?noredirect=on

Sotomayor said she wanted to hit Scalia with a bat.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/sotomayor-scalia-if-i-had-baseball-bat-i-might-have-n669961

 

People may think Roberts is a bit wishy-washy, but he is also not happy the way these Eastern Circuit courts are screwing up SCOTUS opinions. I think that's another reason SCOTUS will make a statement.

A complaint has been filed for “ threatening scotus “ in the amicus brief. 

Heal this.

8 minutes ago, Zeke said:

A complaint has been filed for “ threatening scotus “ in the amicus brief. 

Heal this.

What the hell are you talking about. Is this just gibberish or did somehting actually happen? if so links to the news please? 

32 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

What the hell are you talking about. Is this just gibberish or did somehting actually happen? if so links to the news please? 

Standby 

Dem senator hit with bar complaint for ‘openly threatening’ Supreme Court

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem-senator-bar-complaint-for-openly-threatening-supreme-court

 

Explore the Fox News apps that are right for you at http://www.foxnews.com/apps-products/index.html.

Yep, read about that earlier - the senator who filed the “heal thyself” amicus brief isn’t currently active with the bar so shouldn’t be practicing law (such as filing briefs):

Quote

The Judicial Watch filing accuses Whitehouse of improperly performing legal work while the status of his license is inactive...

1 minute ago, DirtyDigz said:

Yep, read about that earlier - the senator who filed the “heal thyself” amicus brief isn’t currently active with the bar so shouldn’t be practicing law (such as filing briefs):

I do not believe being an esq is required to file amici’s 

2 minutes ago, Zeke said:

I do not believe being an esq is required to file amici’s 

Agreed - digging deeper, it’s because he listed himself “counsel of record”:

The brief -- which also bore the names of Sens. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii; Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.; Richard Durbin, D-Ill.; and Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. -- named Whitehouse as “Counsel of Record.” Judicial Watch attached a copy of a Rhode Island Judiciary record that lists Whitehouse’s attorney status as inactive. Fox News has confirmed that the current record still shows the inactive status.

So it’s not for what they said, but for where is name appears in the by-line?  Am I missing something or is this a nothingburger?

6 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

So it’s not for what they said, but for where is name appears in the by-line?  Am I missing something or is this a nothingburger?

Gloves on?

3 hours ago, voyager9 said:

So it’s not for what they said, but for where is name appears in the by-line?  Am I missing something or is this a nothingburger?

Representing yourself as a practicing lawyer, when you’re actually not, is not a nothingburger.

Maybe he is active/practicing in some other bar.  We’ll see.

1 minute ago, DirtyDigz said:

Representing yourself as a practicing lawyer, when you’re actually not, is not a nothingburger.

Maybe he is active/practicing in some other bar.  We’ll see.

Also addressed “ conduct unbecoming of the bar.... or sumtin”

Anyone know the date for scotus to rule on this,   I thought it was October.

4 minutes ago, revenger said:

Anyone know the date for scotus to rule on this,   I thought it was October.

I hope it's not.  I think we need the current climate to calm down a little and we desperately need to get both the house and NJ assembly back.  We've waited all this time we can wait a few more months.  

They have not set a date for arguments yet.

I've read it may be this fall.

13 minutes ago, kc17 said:

They have not set a date for arguments yet.

I've read it may be this fall.

That’s how I remember it too. They bumped it for the NY case. 

2 hours ago, BobA said:

I hope it's not.  I think we need the current climate to calm down a little and we desperately need to get both the house and NJ assembly back.  We've waited all this time we can wait a few more months.  

Chances of that are.... ??

Zero if we convince ourselves that there is no chance. But better if we stay vocal and positive for change. 

so no date available yet?    October is coming soon.      where would it be posted first,  does anyone know the link.

The amazing thing about this topic to me is the amount of briefs sent to SCOTUS. This case has brought forward at least 50 briefs! You have these screwball Democratic Senators threatening the Court if they don't make a decision that they like.

In addition the NY case is not asking what Rogers is (shall issue). They are only asking to transport their guns unloaded and locked in a case. After all NYC only has 7 approved gun ranges. I just hope the justices have the brass to tell Whitehouse and Co. to shove it.

On 9/1/2019 at 10:29 PM, drjjpdc said:

The amazing thing about this topic to me is the amount of briefs sent to SCOTUS. This case has brought forward at least 50 briefs! You have these screwball Democratic Senators threatening the Court if they don't make a decision that they like.

In addition the NY case is not asking what Rogers is (shall issue). They are only asking to transport their guns unloaded and locked in a case. After all NYC only has 7 approved gun ranges. I just hope the justices have the brass to tell Whitehouse and Co. to shove it.

You need to follow 2A cases more. They tend to bring out the amicus briefs. 

2 minutes ago, raz-0 said:

The amazing thing about this topic to me is the amount of briefs sent to SCOTUS. This case has brought forward at least 50 briefs!

Hey, lawyers gotta eat too you know.