General Categories > Laws and Legislation

The Uncertain Future of Heller

(1/2) > >>

UseofForceLawyer:
As most of you are aware, Heller v District of Columbia is the foundational SCOTUS case on the Second Amendment and rights to individual possession of firearms. The central holding of Heller is that the language "keep and bear arms" is an individual right associated with the traditional right of self defense and is not necessarily tied to the collective establishment of a local militia.

Heller was closely decided: it was 5-4 with Scalia in the majority.

Last week I had a lengthy discussion with Alan Gura, the 2nd Amendment lawyer who tried both Heller and the McDonald v Chicago cases in the Supreme Court. I asked the obvious question: how Justice Scalia's death changes the game. He said what I assumed was true: if whoever the President is appoints a member of the Court that disagrees with Heller, "it's over. There is no two ways about it."

It was a sobering discussion.

Just another reminder about how important it is that we elect a President who is committed to appointing members of the bench who are committed to a originalist understanding of the Constitution and who will not import the values of the current legal class into his or her opinions.

Gary Young
www.ccwlegalsurvivalnebraska.com

depserv:
Scalia will be missed and he will be hard to replace.  So far it looks like the Republicans intend to do their sworn duty by keeping Obama from further corrupting the Court by appointing another Constitution-hating liberal to it.  I did see something put out a week or so ago on Facebook by Deb Fischer asking how her constituents felt about allowing Obama to make a replacement, so it would be a good idea for all patriots to make both of our senators aware that we absolutely do not want another Obama appointee on the Court, and we do expect our senators to do their sworn duty in defending the Constitution.

I think Cruz is the one most likely to appoint a loyal American to the Court.  We know Hillary will appoint a traitor (one who levies war on the Constitution in other words).  Trump is an unknown.

Is there any mechanism in our law to remove a justice from the Court who flagrantly disregards the law?  For example, when Sotomayor was being considered she was asked about the Heller Decision and she said it was "settled law," but when she was on the Court and the McDonald case came before the Court she cast her vote to undermine the same right that had been affirmed by Heller, showing her to be a liar as well as a traitor.  So is there any way a rogue justice like her (and Kagan, Ginsberg, etc.) can be removed if a loyal American wins the next election and brings in a majority of loyal Americans in both houses of Congress?  Or would it take a Constitutional Amendment?

UseofForceLawyer:
Removing a Justice would require impeachment. That isn't going to happen.

Resisting an appointment is the primary strategy right now.

Gary Young

Husker_Fan:
If (and that's a huge if) the President nominates a reasonable person, they should be considered. I doubt either Clinton or Trump would give us a better choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

depserv:

--- Quote from: Husker_Fan on March 08, 2016, 01:34:22 PM ---If (and that's a huge if) the President nominates a reasonable person, they should be considered. I doubt either Clinton or Trump would give us a better choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

--- End quote ---

Someone appointed by Trump will no doubt be better than anyone Obama or Hillary would appoint.  And there is a chance that Cruz will get the nomination instead of Trump.

Obama WILL NOT appoint a loyal American to the Supreme Court.  The Senate leadership should keep any appointment he makes from being voted on because even though Republicans control the Senate, there are several among them who have proven that grovelling before the America-hating liars of liberal media overrides their sworn duty to defend the Constitution.

The Constitution is too important to just give up on it.  An Obama (or Hillary) appointment will render the Constitution not only worthless but worse than worthless, because the same majority of activist liberals that fails to see what is clearly written in the document will find things written in it that aren't really there.  This has been done before and will be done again, if those who have no respect for the written law have the power to corrupt it.  The damage already done to the Republic could increase exponentially.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page