would congress have a say on....

[ponders]

if the supreme court would be appointed 2 new left justices and their decision to effectively rule out the 2A of the bill of rights?


as in lets say they get appointed 2 new leftists and they redo the 2A case and rule that we cant have them.. wouldnt congress have something to say and try to stop it?

or would there decision be final until decades in the future when right wingers are appointed and give it back?

forgive my ignorance

 

[jlrhiner]

Well, first off, Welcome to the Forum!

Second, any nomination for Supreme Court Justice has to be approved by Congress.

They don't review standing law, so they won't arbitrarily overturn any previous decision. A new case brought before them might result in a narrower view and yes, subsequent restrictions. Something we all need to think about when a nominee is being approved.

Next, only Congress can make laws, and the 2nd Amendment, (along with all the others) require a 2/3 majority of the States to ratify their repeal.

So, the House and Senate have to agree on the specific repeal, and the President has to sign it. Then it goes to the States, where each State votes it up or down. If it gets more than 2/3's needed, it passes. If not, it fails.

Now that's how I understand it works. If I'm wrong, the rest of the gang will be along soon and correct me.

 

[P&R Fan]

Well, first off, Welcome to the Forum!

Second, any nomination for Supreme Court Justice has to be approved by Congress.

They don't review standing law, so they won't arbitrarily overturn any previous decision. A new case brought before them might result in a narrower view and yes, subsequent restrictions. Something we all need to think about when a nominee is being approved.

Next, only Congress can make laws, and the 2nd Amendment, (along with all the others) require a 2/3 majority of the States to ratify their repeal.

So, the House and Senate have to agree on the specific repeal, and the President has to sign it. Then it goes to the States, where each State votes it up or down. If it gets more than 2/3's needed, it passes. If not, it fails.

Now that's how I understand it works. If I'm wrong, the rest of the gang will be along soon and correct me.

Only thing I would clarify is Supreme Court nominees are approved by the Senate.
Jim

 

[Penmon]

Rule #1 We don't talk politics.
Rule 2# See number one.
Penmon

 

[snw19_357]

I was under the impression that SCOTUS judges were appointed for life so the standing judges would either have to quit or 'pass' to have a new one appointed, regardless of who is in office.

 

[P&R Fan]

I was under the impression that SCOTUS judges were appointed for life so the standing judges would either have to quit or 'pass' to have a new one appointed, regardless of who is in office.

That is true. But every Presidential election the pundits opine that the next President "will appoint ???? number of Supreme Court Justices".
This may well be true. Then again, maybe not. We never know for sure.
Jim

 

[george minze]

Considering the ages of sitting Supreme Court Justices, the next president will nominate more than one and probably three....Just a thought.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

In our constitutional republic we have three separate, but equal, branches of government: the legislative, the executive, and the judicial.

The legislative branch (Congress) is supposed to be the body that promulgates the law. History has shown that sometimes they act, other times they don't act; and occasionally they have exceeded their authority.

The executive branch (headed by the President) is supposed to implement and enforce the laws enacted by the legislative branch. History has shown that sometimes executive orders are imposed in lieu of duly adopted laws, and occasionally a president will decide which laws will be enforced and which will not.

The judicial branch (headed by the Supreme Court) is supposed to arbiter disputes at law and decide on issues of the constitutionality of laws passed by the legislative branch. History has shown that they will occasionally impose their will via judicial orders rather than simply serving as impartial referees.

Obviously, the ideal situation would be one in which each participant knew, understood, and limited themselves to their proper roles. History has shown that this is not always the case.

Interestingly, each and every elected and appointed official must swear an oath of office, including the requirement to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Obviously, there have been more than a few who have taken office without serious intent to comply with that sworn oath.

In a perfect world there would be no need for government. Our Founding Fathers clearly understood that we do not inhabit a perfect world, making government a necessity, so they attempted to craft a framework of government that was as restrictive as possible ON THE GOVERNMENT while affirming and codifying the liberties of each person.

The problem has always been in confirming the election or appointment of only those who respect and revere the standards and ideals contained in our Constitution, serving faithfully rather than simply governing and ruling.

 

[safearm]

I was under the impression that SCOTUS judges were appointed for life so the standing judges would either have to quit or 'pass' to have a new one appointed, regardless of who is in office.

They are appointed for life, but they can retire at anytime, opening up an opportunity for a new appointment.

 

[mrsig]

Keep in mind what could be done by executive order or administrative rules not just the court.

 

[johngalt]

Another important point that needs to be made and is frequently missed by people:

The statement:
"if the supreme court would be appointed 2 new left justices and their decision to effectively rule out the 2A of the bill of rights?

...[snip]...

or would there decision be final until decades in the future when right wingers are appointed and give it back? "

implies that the 2nd GIVES us the right to bear arms. It does not. The Bill of Rights does not give any rights - it merely affirms that the govt may not deny us our rights that existed BEFORE the formation of the republic. The government is a creation of free people, it has no power to grant rights.

If the 2nd went away, it would not take away our right to bear arms. Read the 9th and 10th amendments.