Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > General Topics > 2nd Amendment Forum
o

Notices

2nd Amendment Forum Current 2nd Amendment Issues- READ the INSTRUCTIONS!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-26-2017, 11:35 AM
DWalt's Avatar
DWalt DWalt is online now
Member
Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today  
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: South Texas & San Antonio
Posts: 33,480
Likes: 236
Liked 28,941 Times in 14,012 Posts
Default Very bad news from the Supremes today

Supreme Court rejects gun rights appeal
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #2  
Old 06-26-2017, 11:38 AM
Targets Guy's Avatar
Targets Guy Targets Guy is offline
US Veteran
Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today  
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Southwest Iowa
Posts: 10,867
Likes: 2,688
Liked 18,968 Times in 5,588 Posts
Default

with Thomas and Gorsuch dissenting
__________________
Mike
S&WCA #3065
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #3  
Old 06-26-2017, 03:27 PM
GaryS's Avatar
GaryS GaryS is offline
Member
Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today  
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 11,345
Likes: 9,368
Liked 17,263 Times in 6,632 Posts
Default

A very disappointing decision. Peruta certainly seemed to be ripe and had a good plaintiff.
__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-26-2017, 03:55 PM
Fishinfool's Avatar
Fishinfool Fishinfool is offline
Member
Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today  
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Central PA
Posts: 4,550
Likes: 8,201
Liked 11,436 Times in 3,018 Posts
Default

Seems to be a swing in the courts lately to let individual states establish gun laws, as long as they meet the minimum definition (Boy, ain't that subjective) of the 2nd Amendment.

I am all for states rights, but the wording, to me, is pretty clear in the 2nd Amendment.....

Larry
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #5  
Old 06-26-2017, 05:59 PM
ISCS Yoda's Avatar
ISCS Yoda ISCS Yoda is online now
US Veteran
Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today  
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 8,388
Likes: 2,476
Liked 13,046 Times in 4,532 Posts
Default

There is nothing actually "clear" about the Second Amendment or we wouldn't have any disputes. It took forever for the SCOTUS to actually apply the Second Amendment to the States so there will always be room for interpretation.

It is not just the minimum definition of the Second Amendment. The Justices who crafted the Heller and McDonald opinions, particularly the late, great Antonin Scalia, left room for "reasonable restrictions". THAT is where the rubber meets the road. WHAT is a reasonable restriction? That is an undefined term presently,

Therefore, if a city, in a state that allows cities to pass their own gun laws, decides that it is reasonable to require its citizens to have a good reason to carry a concealed handgun, and not just "because", then the SCOTUS will dodge the issue every time and permit the city ordinance to stand. It's really not surprising at all.

Federal pre-emption is the only cure to this problem.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #6  
Old 06-26-2017, 06:03 PM
ladder13 ladder13 is offline
Member
Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 30,692
Likes: 57,546
Liked 52,816 Times in 16,468 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishinfool View Post
Seems to be a swing in the courts lately to let individual states establish gun laws, as long as they meet the minimum definition (Boy, ain't that subjective) of the 2nd Amendment.

I am all for states rights, but the wording, to me, is pretty clear in the 2nd Amendment.....

Larry
Clear as anything can be.

Thomas speaks out:


Justice Thomas Calls Out The Supreme Court On | The Daily Caller

Gorsuch called the 9th circuit decision " indefensible".

Unfortunately due to the reluctance of the SC to affirm what has already been written in the 2A........
I'd say states like NY, MA, CT, MD, NJ, CA are on their own now. But watch out for Bloomberg and his merry band of gun grabbers coming to a state near you.
__________________
Sure you did

Last edited by ladder13; 06-27-2017 at 12:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #7  
Old 06-26-2017, 09:18 PM
Targets Guy's Avatar
Targets Guy Targets Guy is offline
US Veteran
Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today  
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Southwest Iowa
Posts: 10,867
Likes: 2,688
Liked 18,968 Times in 5,588 Posts
Default

SCOTUS protects the 2nd Amendment today.

SCOTUS Lets Ruling Stand Protecting Second Amendment Rights Following Non-Serious Misdemeanors


On Monday the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) let stand a Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pennsylvania ruling which protects Second Amendment rights following non-serious misdemeanor convictions.
__________________
Mike
S&WCA #3065

Last edited by Targets Guy; 06-26-2017 at 09:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-26-2017, 09:29 PM
rwsmith's Avatar
rwsmith rwsmith is offline
Member
Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today  
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: (outside) Charleston, SC
Posts: 30,907
Likes: 41,495
Liked 29,149 Times in 13,779 Posts
Default Well, a mandate.....

Well, a mandate from the Supreme Court is just what we need to keep criminals, gang bangers and terrorists from carrying guns in public, yessiree Bob. Even if crazy people can get hold of a gun, they won't be able to carry it out in public and shoot anybody. They'll have to kill others in their own homes. Is this a great country or what?
__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Like Post:
  #9  
Old 06-27-2017, 11:57 AM
ChattanoogaPhil's Avatar
ChattanoogaPhil ChattanoogaPhil is offline
Member
Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today  
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 14,661
Likes: 7,937
Liked 20,623 Times in 5,958 Posts
Default

SCJ Thomas nailed it - But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it,” Thomas said.



The 2A is clear to me.... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

What part of requiring someone to obtain a license to bear arms then denying issuance of the license on the basis that the government doesn't rate the need to bear arms worthy enough to issue a license isn't an infringement? Please...

The 2A would need to be re-written - The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be infringed by the whim of government

Last edited by ChattanoogaPhil; 06-27-2017 at 12:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 5 Users Like Post:
  #10  
Old 06-27-2017, 10:09 PM
bushmaster1313's Avatar
bushmaster1313 bushmaster1313 is offline
Member
Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today  
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: PRNJ
Posts: 6,703
Likes: 476
Liked 16,573 Times in 3,281 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChattanoogaPhil View Post
SCJ Thomas nailed it - But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it,” Thomas said.



The 2A is clear to me.... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

What part of requiring someone to obtain a license to bear arms then denying issuance of the license on the basis that the government doesn't rate the need to bear arms worthy enough to issue a license isn't an infringement? Please...

The 2A would need to be re-written - The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be infringed by the whim of government
Right is not a right
People does not mean people
Keep does not mean have
Bear does not mean carry
Arms does not mean guns
Shall not be infringed means may be prohibitied

What not to understand?
__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly

Last edited by bushmaster1313; 06-28-2017 at 08:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #11  
Old 06-28-2017, 08:12 AM
g8rb8 g8rb8 is offline
Member
Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today  
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Kansas
Posts: 2,566
Likes: 5,443
Liked 2,921 Times in 1,222 Posts
Default

I'm too lazy and pressed for time this morning to look up the reasoning, if any, the Supreme Court gave for not hearing the Peruta case so if someone has the answer or a link please post or I'll look it up later. The article linked does seem to give an idea why the dissenters (Thomas and Gorsuch) dissented.
__________________
Scoundrel & Ne'er-Do-Well
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-28-2017, 09:08 AM
CAJUNLAWYER's Avatar
CAJUNLAWYER CAJUNLAWYER is offline
Member
Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today  
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On da Bayou Teche
Posts: 18,407
Likes: 18,440
Liked 58,599 Times in 9,622 Posts
Default

Well I posit the reason that Roberts and Alito did not provide the 2 votes needed to call the case up for hearing is really simple. Remember that at the time this was decided there was speculation that Kennedy was going to retire. If true and the case was called up to the docket the Court would in all likelihood be faced with a 4-4 split which would have affirmed the California decision. The reasoning being that a confirmation of a new Justice would have been an absolute bloodbath. Remember that Kennedy was nominated only after Robert Bork removed himself from the fray. Gorsuch was a zero sum proposition regarding ideologies when he replaced Scalia. You can bet your backsides that the Trump nominee who eventually replaces Kennedy will be the REAL game changer on SCOTUS. I suggest that the long game is in play here for the reasons above set forth.
__________________
Forum consigliere

Last edited by CAJUNLAWYER; 06-28-2017 at 12:29 PM. Reason: misspelling
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-28-2017, 10:57 AM
GaryS's Avatar
GaryS GaryS is offline
Member
Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today  
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 11,345
Likes: 9,368
Liked 17,263 Times in 6,632 Posts
Default

Sadly, I can only give one like for this post. It's very well written. I think that there will be more cases along these lines, and that once there is retirement/replacement cycle, a case will come along that is "ripe".

Secondarily, Kennedy is sort of wishy washy on 2A cases, and even if he didn't retire and the case was heard, we would have run the risk of a bad 5-4 decision.

It would have been nice if this was settled in Heller, but since that was not at issue, it might have been a hard sell to get to 5 votes if carry outside the home was included in the decision.



Quote:
Originally Posted by CAJUNLAWYER View Post
Well I posit the reason that Roberts and Alito did not provide the 2 votes needed to call the case up for hearing is really simple. Remember that at the time this was decided there was speculation that Kennedy was going to retire. If true and the case was called up to the docket the COurt would in all likelihood be faced with a 4-4 split which would have affirmed the California decision. The reasoning being that a confirmation of a new Justice would have been an absolute bloodbath. Remember that Kennedy was nominated only after Robert Bork removed himself from the fray. Gorsuch was a zero sum proposition regarding ideologies when he replaced Scalia. You can bet your backsides that the Trump nominie who eventually replaces Kennedy will be the REAL game changer on SCOTUS. I suggest that the long game is in play here for the reasons above set forth.
__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-28-2017, 01:51 PM
ladder13 ladder13 is offline
Member
Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 30,692
Likes: 57,546
Liked 52,816 Times in 16,468 Posts
Default

Ginsburg is ready to go and Souter is 79, there could possibly be 3 picks in the next couple years.
Gonna be hell on Capital Hill.Need to hold the majority.

Gorsuch looks to be a keeper.
__________________
Sure you did

Last edited by ladder13; 06-28-2017 at 02:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #15  
Old 06-28-2017, 03:03 PM
Walkingwolf's Avatar
Walkingwolf Walkingwolf is offline
Member
Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today  
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,624
Likes: 2,003
Liked 1,653 Times in 809 Posts
Default

IMO Kennedy would have voted with the liberals using Heller. The Heller ruling made it clear that there was a court history for states regulation of concealed carry.

We dodged a bullet IMO.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #16  
Old 06-28-2017, 10:04 PM
bushmaster1313's Avatar
bushmaster1313 bushmaster1313 is offline
Member
Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today  
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: PRNJ
Posts: 6,703
Likes: 476
Liked 16,573 Times in 3,281 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ladder13 View Post
Ginsburg is ready to go and Souter is 79, there could possibly be 3 picks in the next couple years.
Gonna be hell on Capital Hill.Need to hold the majority.

Gorsuch looks to be a keeper.
Souter retired in 2009
__________________
Buy American
Vote Responsibly
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-28-2017, 10:08 PM
ladder13 ladder13 is offline
Member
Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 30,692
Likes: 57,546
Liked 52,816 Times in 16,468 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bushmaster1313 View Post
Souter retired in 2009
Yes, meant Breyer, thanks.
__________________
Sure you did
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-29-2017, 02:53 AM
rwsmith's Avatar
rwsmith rwsmith is offline
Member
Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today  
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: (outside) Charleston, SC
Posts: 30,907
Likes: 41,495
Liked 29,149 Times in 13,779 Posts
Default Inalienable....

Quote:
Originally Posted by bushmaster1313 View Post
Right is not a right
People does not mean people
Keep does not mean have
Bear does not mean carry
Arms does not mean guns
Shall not be infringed means may be prohibitied

What not to understand?
Inalienable means that you have to fight every to keep rights from being rescinded.
__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-29-2017, 09:34 AM
Jeff423's Avatar
Jeff423 Jeff423 is offline
US Veteran
Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today  
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: St. Charles County, MO
Posts: 1,374
Likes: 973
Liked 1,071 Times in 424 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bushmaster1313 View Post
Right is not a right
People does not mean people
Keep does not mean have
Bear does not mean carry
Arms does not mean guns
Shall not be infringed means may be prohibitied

What not to understand?
What does a "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" mean?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-29-2017, 09:54 AM
dougb1946 dougb1946 is offline
Member
Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today  
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Southern MN
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 159
Liked 1,949 Times in 725 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishinfool View Post
Seems to be a swing in the courts lately to let individual states establish gun laws, as long as they meet the minimum definition (Boy, ain't that subjective) of the 2nd Amendment.

I am all for states rights, but the wording, to me, is pretty clear in the 2nd Amendment.....

Larry
The Bill of Rights was written to limit federal actions with the 2A deliberately making gun control a states rights thing. The intention was to make the states as powerful as the Feds.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-29-2017, 01:36 PM
Watchdog Watchdog is offline
Banned
Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today  
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,572
Likes: 21,054
Liked 32,463 Times in 7,773 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff423 View Post
What does a "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" mean?
You're only quoting part of the sentence. If only part of it is quoted, it's an incomplete sentence and doesn't sound right.

And the Second Amendment, by the way, is composed of only one sentence (even though it may read like two sentences):

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

When the framers wrote it, they were speaking in the present tense. The word "being" is used as a verb

It's like me saying, "Watchdog, being somewhat irritable today, decided not to put up with any B.S." It means the same thing as saying, "Watchdog is somewhat irritable today, and has decided not to put up with any B.S."

The framers are simply saying that a well regulated militia is necessary to protect a free state.

If we were to write that amendment today, we might say something like this, while still keeping it as one sentence:

"A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It's just grammar and/or semantics, that's all.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #22  
Old 06-29-2017, 03:55 PM
GaryS's Avatar
GaryS GaryS is offline
Member
Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today  
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 11,345
Likes: 9,368
Liked 17,263 Times in 6,632 Posts
Default

At the time of the framing of Constitution "well regulated" meant properly trained and equipped. It had nothing to do with gun control rules or laws. Many states had laws requiring all adult males to own and maintain a long gun capable of use in the militia.

For those interested, I recommend (again) "Armed America", by Clayton Cramer. It's a well researched and written history of the use of firearms in Colonial and early America. IIRC, an excerpt was cited in Heller.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchdog View Post
You're only quoting part of the sentence. If only part of it is quoted, it's an incomplete sentence and doesn't sound right.

And the Second Amendment, by the way, is composed of only one sentence (even though it may read like two sentences):

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

When the framers wrote it, they were speaking in the present tense. The word "being" is used as a verb

It's like me saying, "Watchdog, being somewhat irritable today, decided not to put up with any B.S." It means the same thing as saying, "Watchdog is somewhat irritable today, and has decided not to put up with any B.S."

The framers are simply saying that a well regulated militia is necessary to protect a free state.

If we were to write that amendment today, we might say something like this, while still keeping it as one sentence:

"A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It's just grammar and/or semantics, that's all.
__________________
Can open, worms everywhere.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-29-2017, 05:13 PM
ladder13 ladder13 is offline
Member
Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 30,692
Likes: 57,546
Liked 52,816 Times in 16,468 Posts
Default

Clarence Thomas: 'Improbable' that 2nd Amendment Only Protects Carrying a Gun in Your Home

Judge Thomas, to paraphrase, "I find it improbable that the 2A was only meant to protect carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen".
__________________
Sure you did
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #24  
Old 06-29-2017, 06:00 PM
Watchdog Watchdog is offline
Banned
Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today  
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,572
Likes: 21,054
Liked 32,463 Times in 7,773 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by g8rb8 View Post
I'm too lazy and pressed for time this morning to look up the reasoning, if any, the Supreme Court gave for not hearing the Peruta case so if someone has the answer or a link please post or I'll look it up later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAJUNLAWYER View Post
Well I posit the reason that Roberts and Alito did not provide the 2 votes needed to call the case up for hearing is really simple.
It doesn't really matter now why the Court didn't hear the case. The fact is, they didn't, so that's that for now. Maybe next time.

And it's really pointless to speculate in this thread about how some Justice might have voted, or speculate about future Justices and how they may or may not vote years from now. Peruta is here and now, not years down the road.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwsmith View Post
Inalienable means that you have to fight every to keep rights from being rescinded.
I guess you're trying to be funny? Or sarcastic? Whatever, that isn't even close to what "inalienable" means.

Regarding the dissenting opinions by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, if anyone is interested, you can read the real thing, instead of clicking on links to news sites and gun blogs that offer only partial quotes and their own opinions. It's in PDF format, eight pages of it, and is much more enlightening and interesting to read than cherrypicked comments on news sites. You're reading the words of Justice Thomas, himself.

Note that Justice Thomas wrote the dissent. Gorsuch "joined in the opinion" but apparently wrote no separate dissenting opinion of his own. There's nothing in the opinion by Justice Thomas that indicates which parts of it may have come from Gorsuch.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-03-2017, 05:29 PM
ladder13 ladder13 is offline
Member
Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today Very bad news from the Supremes today  
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 30,692
Likes: 57,546
Liked 52,816 Times in 16,468 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAJUNLAWYER View Post
Well I posit the reason that Roberts and Alito did not provide the 2 votes needed to call the case up for hearing is really simple. Remember that at the time this was decided there was speculation that Kennedy was going to retire. If true and the case was called up to the docket the Court would in all likelihood be faced with a 4-4 split which would have affirmed the California decision. The reasoning being that a confirmation of a new Justice would have been an absolute bloodbath. Remember that Kennedy was nominated only after Robert Bork removed himself from the fray. Gorsuch was a zero sum proposition regarding ideologies when he replaced Scalia. You can bet your backsides that the Trump nominee who eventually replaces Kennedy will be the REAL game changer on SCOTUS. I suggest that the long game is in play here for the reasons above set forth.
2018 looms large
Justice Kennedy Tells October 2018 Clerkship Applicants He’s Considering Retirement, Right Before 2018 Midterms | Election Law Blog
__________________
Sure you did
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bad news today BigBill The Lounge 20 04-30-2016 04:50 PM
Sad News from S&W today on my Md 15-4 cporfe S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 39 11-08-2013 02:07 PM
Good news and bad news for me today.... Aahzz Smith & Wesson M&P Pistols 14 01-25-2013 02:58 PM
CNN news today oldman45 Concealed Carry & Self Defense 27 05-10-2010 08:55 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:04 PM.


Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)