SCOTUS Kennedy just retired.

A place for sharing news stories related to armed citizens, law enforcement & 2A/CCW topics.

Please note that when linking to an article you must cite the source URL and provide no more than a brief preview of the article to ensure fair-use standards are met.

NO DOCUMENT DUMPING.

Posts in violation of these rules are subject to immediate deletion without warning.

Moderators: Coordinators, Moderators

SCOTUS Kennedy just retired.

Postby bignflnut » Wed Jun 27, 2018 1:15 pm

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy will retire from the highest U.S. court, giving President Donald Trump another chance to fundamentally reshape the top of the judiciary.

In a letter to Trump dated Wednesday, Kennedy said he would step down.

"For a member of the legal profession, it is the highest of honors to serve on this Court," he wrote. "Please permit me by this letter to express my profound gratitude for having had the privilege to seek in each case how best to know, interpret and defend the Constitution and the laws that must always conform to its mandates and promises.


Gotta be a bad week @ SCOTUS for the snowflake crowd.

You think there was a push toward incivility before...wait till there's a nominee!
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6319
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: SCOTUS Kennedy just retired.

Postby deanimator » Wed Jun 27, 2018 5:12 pm

  1. invalidate the NFA '34.
  2. Invalidate the GCA '68
  3. Invalidate the Brady Bill.
  4. Invalidate the Hughes Amendment.

A few "first good steps"...
Life comes at you fast. Be prepared to shoot it in the head when it does.
User avatar
deanimator
 
Posts: 7430
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 7:34 pm
Location: Rocky River

Re: SCOTUS Kennedy just retired.

Postby M-Quigley » Wed Jun 27, 2018 6:54 pm

bignflnut wrote:Gotta be a bad week @ SCOTUS for the snowflake crowd.

You think there was a push toward incivility before...wait till there's a nominee!


I had to call a certain anti gun socialist relative about something else anyway, :( so I asked her if she'd heard the news about the justice retiring. She had, and said in her opinion the Democrats should block whoever Trump nominates until after the November elections, when they will take back the house and Senate. (not if but will) Of course this is the same person that said Trump had no chance of winning, so I'm not sure her political prognostications are anyway. She said that after the mid terms, the Democrats can then impeach Trump and Pence, (not sure on what grounds Pence would be impeached :?: ) and then the new speaker of the house would be president. The new president could then appoint the correct justice (AKA another Ginsberg, because she has her picture in her house) and restore some so called balance to the court. By correct, I assume she means an activist justice who believes the BOR is a living document and means whatever the justices want it to mean at that moment.
Hearing all this made me wonder if Ohio started dispensing the medical marijuana and I missed it in the news. :roll:
M-Quigley
 
Posts: 2893
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: SCOTUS Kennedy just retired.

Postby djthomas » Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:11 am

I always find impeachment talk hilarious. The dreamy-eyed always forget that its a two step process. Yes, a simple majority of the House is needed to impeach someone. But then it takes two thirds of the Senate, yes TWO THIRDS to convict! That's 67 votes to remove the person from office. It's statistically impossible for the Democrats to have 67 senate seats in 2019; the Republicans only have 9 standing for election this round. Even an electoral shutout would give them 58 seats at best.

In any event, even if the Republicans did hold off until after the elections does anybody seriously think that if they lose the Senate in November they won't confirm the nominee in December on their way out the door? They'd probably also confirm the CFPB nominee then too just to stick it to 'em.
Never ask if you can carry at a non-posted place, but always ask why you cannot at one that is!
Just because they offer call ahead seating doesn't mean you call ahead for carry permission.
User avatar
djthomas
 
Posts: 5819
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 11:09 am
Location: Medina County

Re: SCOTUS Kennedy just retired.

Postby wls » Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:34 am

You think the Left is bad now, just wait until Ginsburg can’t show up for work anymore and has to be replaced (I’m being polite). The Left will totally implode!
wls
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:57 pm
Location: N Cincinnati

Re: SCOTUS Kennedy just retired.

Postby M-Quigley » Thu Jun 28, 2018 8:20 am

djthomas wrote:I always find impeachment talk hilarious. The dreamy-eyed always forget that its a two step process. Yes, a simple majority of the House is needed to impeach someone. But then it takes two thirds of the Senate, yes TWO THIRDS to convict! That's 67 votes to remove the person from office. It's statistically impossible for the Democrats to have 67 senate seats in 2019; the Republicans only have 9 standing for election this round. Even an electoral shutout would give them 58 seats at best.


I didn't have the exact numbers but I mentioned that general point to her about the Senate. Her response was the evidence from the Mueller investigation will be so compelling that some Republican Senators will be publically shamed into voting to impeach. I asked if Meuller has evidence why doesn't he bring it out now? She thinks Mueller is just waiting for the right time to bring all the evidence publically, and that any day now, the truth will come out. :roll:

When she mentioned Senators (or most politicians of any political affilation) and shame in the same sentence, the thing that happened to pop into my mind at the time was this. :lol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEqbKTM7n4M
M-Quigley
 
Posts: 2893
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: SCOTUS Kennedy just retired.

Postby bignflnut » Thu Jun 28, 2018 9:11 am

SALTY LIB TEARS: Record Salt Harvest After Justice Kennedy Resigns From Supreme Court

Salt miners from The Donald and 4chan are reporting a record harvest after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced he's going to resign from the Supreme Court on Wednesday.


(Warning of the F-carpet bombs all over this article.)

On Kennedy, let us recall that
(A) He is the last of the Reagan appointees on the court
(B) The people not identifying as conservatives think he is/was some bulwark for their worldview.

Everyone expects SCOTUS to move right, therefore Kennedy, the R-appointed, did not reliably deliver as appointed.
The lesson being this, just because an R appoints a justice, doesn't mean the justice (cough, Roberts, cough) is going to do what is expected.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6319
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: SCOTUS Kennedy just retired.

Postby M-Quigley » Thu Jun 28, 2018 1:40 pm

bignflnut wrote:
SALTY LIB TEARS: Record Salt Harvest After Justice Kennedy Resigns From Supreme Court

Salt miners from The Donald and 4chan are reporting a record harvest after Justice Anthony Kennedy announced he's going to resign from the Supreme Court on Wednesday.


(Warning of the F-carpet bombs all over this article.)

On Kennedy, let us recall that
(A) He is the last of the Reagan appointees on the court
(B) The people not identifying as conservatives think he is/was some bulwark for their worldview.

Everyone expects SCOTUS to move right, therefore Kennedy, the R-appointed, did not reliably deliver as appointed.
The lesson being this, just because an R appoints a justice, doesn't mean the justice (cough, Roberts, cough) is going to do what is expected.


I've always heard Kennedy described as more of a libertarian politically than a conservative, so it's not surprising he would side with the liberals sometimes on certain social issues.

As far as the comments in the link, there was one interesting one. It said if you voted for anyone other than Hillary you own this. I don't think that's quite true in Ohio, because even if you gave all the third party votes to her she still would've lost the state, but oh well. :roll: So all you people who didn't vote for Hillary can take credit for this. :mrgreen:
M-Quigley
 
Posts: 2893
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:06 pm
Location: Western Ohio

Re: SCOTUS Kennedy just retired.

Postby steves 50de » Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:42 pm

M-Quigley wrote:
djthomas wrote:I always find impeachment talk hilarious. The dreamy-eyed always forget that its a two step process. Yes, a simple majority of the House is needed to impeach someone. But then it takes two thirds of the Senate, yes TWO THIRDS to convict! That's 67 votes to remove the person from office. It's statistically impossible for the Democrats to have 67 senate seats in 2019; the Republicans only have 9 standing for election this round. Even an electoral shutout would give them 58 seats at best.


I didn't have the exact numbers but I mentioned that general point to her about the Senate. Her response was the evidence from the Mueller investigation will be so compelling that some Republican Senators will be publically shamed into voting to impeach. I asked if Meuller has evidence why doesn't he bring it out now? She thinks Mueller is just waiting for the right time to bring all the evidence publically, and that any day now, the truth will come out. :roll:

When she mentioned Senators (or most politicians of any political affilation) and shame in the same sentence, the thing that happened to pop into my mind at the time was this. :lol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEqbKTM7n4M

You can't blame her she just repeats what she hears on MSNBC and CNN. Just sayin.
Black Rifles Matter
steves 50de
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 3067
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 5:26 pm
Location: n.e. ohio

Re: SCOTUS Kennedy just retired.

Postby WestonDon » Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:49 pm

This will probably get me flamed in some circles but here goes.

I don't see a justice not being reliably conservative or liberal as a weakness but rather as a strength. It means they consider each case on it's merits in accordance with the constitution. As it should be. In fact, I don't agree with the terms conservative and liberal to define judges. these are terms used to describe our two major political parties. Modern SCOTUS justices tend to be either original constructionists or "living document" adherents when interpreting the constitution. The living document crowd tends to try to contort the original meaning of the constitution to fit whatever agenda they happen to support while the original constructionists tend to apply the constitution as is to the facts of the case regardless of what agenda may be advanced or impeded. I can understand how a justice using original construction criteria may reach a Conclusion I do not like.

Not all "liberal" issues are unconstitutional nor are all "conservative" issues constitutional. I can accept that. That's one reason why we have SCOTUS in the first place.

It just so happens that the original meaning of the constitution suits me just fine but I also understand that modern life is vastly different than in the era of the founders. That's what the amendment process is for.
I believe in American exceptianalism
Fear the government that fears your guns
NRA endowment life member
WestonDon
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
 
Posts: 2549
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 3:30 pm
Location: Wood county

Re: SCOTUS Kennedy just retired.

Postby bignflnut » Fri Jun 29, 2018 8:59 am

WestonDon wrote:This will probably get me flamed in some circles but here goes.

As it should be. In fact, I don't agree with the terms conservative and liberal to define judges. these are terms used to describe our two major political parties. Modern SCOTUS justices tend to be either original constructionists or "living document" adherents when interpreting the constitution. The living document crowd tends to try to contort the original meaning of the constitution to fit whatever agenda they happen to support while the original constructionists tend to apply the constitution as is to the facts of the case regardless of what agenda may be advanced or impeded. I can understand how a justice using original construction criteria may reach a Conclusion I do not like.


I'm with you WD.

The term "liberal" (now a "classical liberal") used to mean one who defends Liberty, someone we would agree with. Of course, these terms have changed meaning over the years, describing the division over the meaning of the Constitution and the role of law in society (shield--Negative Rights vs weapon--Positive Rights).

It's a matter of good faith. Are people attempting to change America and what it means, or are people trying to find legal ways to justify their perverse concept of what America should be in modernity? Everyone wants "justice", but how do we define that, what standard to we uphold as just? What standard do we put our faith in as the standard of justice? This is where secular faiths and religious faiths collide, making them relevant to RKBA...but I digress...

Some offer precedent and "settled law" as a standard to uphold. You can be sure it will be a hot topic in the confirmation process. Korematsu was recently overturned, and everyone agrees to that standard of justice being upheld. No riots in the streets, long overdue, etc...

So a moral plea for the government not to treat Korematsu as law is not enough. Fortunately, there is also a legal argument for why Korematsu should not be treated as such.

The most straightforward way to reject Korematsu is to understand it not as the definitive word on the true meaning of the Constitution, but simply as a moment in historical time in which particular justices applied the law to specific facts. According to this view, a decision can be wrong at the very moment it was decided — and therefore should not be followed subsequently.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy adopted a version of this theory of precedent in his opinion in the landmark 2003 gay rights case, Lawrence v. Texas. Overturning Bowers v. Hardwick, which had held that a state could criminalize homosexual sex, Justice Kennedy wrote that “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today.” This formulation suggests that it would have been constitutionally wrong in the deepest sense to rely on the Bowers decision even before the court realized its error and reversed.

It is hard to think of an opinion not yet overturned that has a greater claim to having been wrong when decided than Korematsu.


To be clear, Kennedy argued that precedent is not an appropriate standard to uphold when precedent does not uphold justice. How straightforward is that? These opinions are not set in stone, and even in the absence of new science/tech/understanding, there can be a wholesale rejection of precedent. In fact Lawrence was applauded in its day by those now fearful of a new justice.

Perhaps most infamous of the wretched SCOTUS opinions is Dred Scott. Some argue that the 14th Amendment overturned Dred.

There is no such thing as "settled law". As Reagan said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from being destroyed..."

In short, there are going to be fireworks because the standard can be changed by the opinions of the un-elected, because much of the legal system relies on these decisions. The operative question is "By What Standard?"

Clearly our political discourse and leaders have divided the populace in numerous ways, so much so that basic civility is now threatened. Are we a nation of laws, or of men? Are we capable of scrubbing out corruption, or do we subsidize it? Assimilation has been denounced as unjustly racist, destroying commonly held values, principles and standards, making SCOTUS a primary battlefield.
Last edited by bignflnut on Fri Jun 29, 2018 9:51 am, edited 2 times in total.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
bignflnut
 
Posts: 6319
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: SCOTUS Kennedy just retired.

Postby AlanM » Fri Jun 29, 2018 9:15 am

Image

If you aren't aware of Stiltson, check out http://stiltonsplace.blogspot.com/
AlanM
There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men. - RAH
Four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo - use in that order.
If you aren't part of the solution, then you obviously weren't properly dissolved.
User avatar
AlanM
 
Posts: 9009
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:38 am
Location: Was Stow, OH now Charlottesville, VA

Re: SCOTUS Kennedy just retired.

Postby schmieg » Fri Jun 29, 2018 9:39 pm

The Democrats stopped being liberals in the early part of this century and became progressives. If you check out the history of the progressive movement, you will find that it encompasses both Republicans and Democrats. In the 30's, the progressives idolized Mussolini and Hitler until things started happening in Europe that made such adoration a political liability. Today, they still hold a lot of the same views, but the stigma is no longer there.
-- Mike

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
User avatar
schmieg
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 5138
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 11:11 pm
Location: Madeira, Ohio

Re: SCOTUS Kennedy just retired.

Postby techmike » Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:01 am

schmieg wrote:The Democrats stopped being liberals in the early part of this century and became progressives. If you check out the history of the progressive movement, you will find that it encompasses both Republicans and Democrats. In the 30's, the progressives idolized Mussolini and Hitler until things started happening in Europe that made such adoration a political liability. Today, they still hold a lot of the same views, but the stigma is no longer there.

They do like projecting that stigma on anyone that disagrees with them.
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
User avatar
techmike
OFCC Coordinator
OFCC Coordinator
 
Posts: 1398
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:42 pm
Location: Toledo

Re: SCOTUS Kennedy just retired.

Postby deanimator » Sat Jun 30, 2018 5:11 pm

djthomas wrote:I always find impeachment talk hilarious. The dreamy-eyed always forget that its a two step process. Yes, a simple majority of the House is needed to impeach someone. But then it takes two thirds of the Senate, yes TWO THIRDS to convict! That's 67 votes to remove the person from office. It's statistically impossible for the Democrats to have 67 senate seats in 2019; the Republicans only have 9 standing for election this round. Even an electoral shutout would give them 58 seats at best.

I'm constantly struck with the impression that the "intersectional" left watched "The Trial of Billy Jack" and thought it was a documentary...
Life comes at you fast. Be prepared to shoot it in the head when it does.
User avatar
deanimator
 
Posts: 7430
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 7:34 pm
Location: Rocky River

Next

Return to In The News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JoeM and 1 guest