RIP RGB. Ginsburg Gonzo.

Discussion in 'The Club House' started by microadventure, Sep 18, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ellis36

    ellis36 Well-Known Member Supporter

    5,877
    7,997
    113
    Sniper03 and Mercator like this.
  2. Sniper03

    Sniper03 Supporting Member Supporter

    11,327
    9,245
    113
    Ellis
    Amen!
    Thanks for the article it very well clears up any doubt about what is going on!
    Once again their plan has Blown Up! Today Romney advised he would vote yes on the Supreme Court appointment.
    So the Senate has more than enough votes to make the appointment!
    03
     
    locutus, Txhillbilly and ellis36 like this.

  3. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member Supporter

    1,887
    2,704
    113

    From that article --- Once the nominee is confirmed, "the U.S. Supreme Court will be divided along the lines of conservative and liberal justices 6-3 in favour of conservatives."[/quote]

    Well, Roberts cannot be counted on to actually act conservatively, including with the RKBA. But, yeah, it'll hopefully shift a bit.
     
    Ghost1958 and ellis36 like this.
  4. microadventure

    microadventure Well-Known Member

    2,405
    3,425
    113
    don't forget that Justice Breyer is 82. it could be 7-2. they would have to jack it up to 15 members to get a majority.
     
    winds-of-change likes this.
  5. Rancid

    Rancid Well-Known Member Supporter

    678
    476
    63
    We need Don Jr. to follow Trump for 8 years, then Ivanka for another 8 years, 20 years of incredible accomplishments for the country. Bye bye Roe Vs. Wade. Bye bye apoplectic Left. Bye bye funding for sanctuary cities / states. Bye bye illegal aliens. Hopefully prosecuting lying news anchors for sedition. Trump will nominate an ultra-conservative originalist Justice and that Justice will be confirmed.
     
    Caveman Jim, Sniper03 and Capacitor like this.
  6. Gatoragn

    Gatoragn Well-Known Member Supporter

    8,565
    7,368
    113
    Ivanka is not 2a friendly, Ivanka and/or Jared are likely the cause of the bump stock ban.
     
    Bare Knuckles and Ghost1958 like this.
  7. Rancid

    Rancid Well-Known Member Supporter

    678
    476
    63
    Well, I see no legitimate reason / need for bump stocks either. :)
     
    locutus likes this.
  8. aarondhgraham

    aarondhgraham Well-Known Member

    381
    697
    93
    "We need Don Jr. to follow Trump for 8 years, then Ivanka for another 8 years,"

    To quote an old movie I once watched,,,
    "Surely, you jest."

    Aarond

    .
     
    Ghost1958 likes this.
  9. partdeux

    partdeux Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,052
    2,529
    113
    And that there is a problem. you see no legitimate reason for a bump stock. Ivanka in her privileged highly protected life sees no reason for semi auto firearms. Pelosi sees no need for peasants to own any firearms.

    If you want a bump stock, or even full auto, have at it.
     
  10. Mercator

    Mercator Well-Known Member

    13,194
    3,000
    113
    Jared and Ivanka have done nothing but help Trump. More than all of us yakking here combined. And yet there we go, yak yak yak yak, like old ladies. What is it, they look too polished for your tastes? Ivanka failed to take a stand for your stupid bump sticks? Jared failed to pose propping up dead deer? They’ve done absolutely nothing against us. Class prejudice or senile paranoia, I don’t know what it is, except it’s idiotic.
     
    Rifling82, ellis36 and Oldoutlaw like this.
  11. Rancid

    Rancid Well-Known Member Supporter

    678
    476
    63
    Not at all. It could happen and might. ;)
     
  12. Gatoragn

    Gatoragn Well-Known Member Supporter

    8,565
    7,368
    113
    For the record, I don't own a bump stock and never have tried to buy one.

    They have certainly helped DJT, but I still say they are not big 2a supporters. The bump stock ban did not cause major harm outside the gun community, and even so the alternative is the social democrats of the US.
     
    G66enigma likes this.
  13. Gatoragn

    Gatoragn Well-Known Member Supporter

    8,565
    7,368
    113
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...se-that-makes-trump-show-weakness/ar-BB14VkaB
     
  14. microadventure

    microadventure Well-Known Member

    2,405
    3,425
    113
    IMHO the first Bush was rather better than the second Bush, and neither was anywhere near Reagan. But I would like to see a Trump dynasty just to watch liberals melting, melting...

    and 9 conservatives on SCOTUS.
     
    Caveman Jim, locutus and Rifling82 like this.
  15. Rancid

    Rancid Well-Known Member Supporter

    678
    476
    63
    If there is a three-person Trump dynasty lasting 20 years the Democratic party will be dead. The accomplishments of that dynasty would pretty much assure Republicans in office for decades. And if they instigate widespread violence in response to Trump winning the election, all they will do is blow their own foot off so to speak.
     
  16. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    4,619
    5,097
    113
    It's not bill of legitimate reasons or needs.
    The ban in full auto is unconstitutional.

    Oh yeah I forgot. you can't see me .
     
    Caveman Jim and G66enigma like this.
  17. Ghost1958

    Ghost1958 Well-Known Member

    4,619
    5,097
    113
    No. What she didnt oppose was her daddy's I infringement on the RTKABA.
    Trump himself is shakey enough on the RTKABA. His slightly more lib kids as pres?? Nope wouldnt waste the gas to vote for either of them
     
    Bare Knuckles likes this.
  18. Oldoutlaw

    Oldoutlaw Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,557
    7,311
    103
    The Constitution dos not mandate any of these hearings like Dems would like. Traditions are not any law. In this case, when Parties got along better, they established a verbal tradition. But, not required by law. The President and Senate alone, decide who is appointed to the SC. A simple Senate vote, by law, is only required.
     
  19. sheepdawg

    sheepdawg Well-Known Member Supporter

    3,872
    9,833
    113
    If Obama had a Democrat Senate in 2016 there would now be a Supreme Court Justice named Garland or worse a Justice named Holder. Anybody want to deny that?

    So Trump has a Republican Senate.
     
  20. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member Supporter

    1,887
    2,704
    113
    ^ This.

    Simple balance of power across three co-equal branches, and the luck of the draw. The "luck" of which will, in time, be just as likely change next time around.

    Every piece of legislation that comes along is an opportunity to "get things done," for example. The little credit-card related package that was put together, and a clause got added related to allowing citizens going armed in national parks and "government" lands. Despite having nothing to do with credit card legislation, it was "slipped" in there. Normal and customary process, if the legislature opts to put a feature in a bill. Luck of the draw, much like how the opportunity comes along with nomination and confirmation of justices on the courts.

    It's how it works. That some have played so-called "hard ball" with such opportunities ... well, that's a fair tactic. And feeling it's a less than above-board approach is, I suppose, also fair for one to feel. Won't change the structural nature of the three branches, though, nor how they operate in fundamental opposition to each other in order to get the job done. All things considered, as the Founders intended: it's probably safest that way.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.