When "I'm Not Voting" and the Libertarian Candidate are included ....

how do you get 7-2 either way? right now it's "supposedly" split 4-4 after Scalia's death.



explain how's it's gone? as in irrelevant? it's never been more relevant.

God help you that you have to breathe the same air as Ivan the chimp!
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

4 of the justices are getting up there in age.

Ginsberg, Breyer, Thomas, Kennedy

so whoever the president is after 2016 is going to have a chance to nominate 4 supreme court justices.

I stayed home in 2012. I don't want to vote for anyone this year but I will probably bite the bullet and cast my vote for the candidate I think is least dangerous.
I feel Sanders ideas represent the greatest threat but the ligislative will stop him from doing much of anything.
Hildebeast will work with and through the beuracracy. This country will almost certainly be worse off. But she is not stupid and the damage will be hardly noticable to most oblivious Americans.
Trump is a wild card. I seriously doubt we will be better off. There is a chance he will executive order this country straight into the toilet.
In short, I will probably vote w my wallet. I will not vote for anyone I believe will hurt me financially.

The only reason to vote the third party is to send the message to the republican and Democratic parties that I will vote, but not for their candidates. I do not expect a third party candidate to win this election...or the next one. It is more a way of saying fuck you to the parties. Do I think they hear it? No, I dont. But sometimes I say it anyway.
This being said, Lincoln was a third party candidate. I agree that the Republican party will be forced to change. If they dont they are on their way out of American politics. Something else will fill the vacuum.

how do you get 7-2 either way? right now it's "supposedly" split 4-4 after Scalia's death.



explain how's it's gone? as in irrelevant? it's never been more relevant.

God help you that you have to breathe the same air as Ivan the chimp!
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

The Court has become too politicized. Look at CJ Roberts. He completely caved to Obama on the ACA. The Court has been teetering for years. With the death of Scalia, the Court is gone as a vanguard for the Constitution. Harry Reid or Chuck Schumer will have a huge say in who gets on the Court the next few years. Do you think we will get another originalist like Scalia on the Court? Ever again? Doubtful. The Court is going to to go the way of political expediency and popular will, and ignore the Constitution.


But like I said earlier, when Trump reveals his list, and there are originalists on it, I'll reconsider. If he's willing to fight for an originalist Court, I will definitely reconsider. But I don't see it.

Scalia was a toad. The fucking constitution is safer now...

Pine Straw.jpg

Not close to my feelings on the subject. Not even in the same ballpark.

I fully support your right to own guns for your personal protection. I support your right to own almost any gun or weapon for your personal protection. I support your right to carry your handgun concealed with a CHL. I support your right to open carry, although I don't like it. And I support the right of states to enact gun control laws as they see fit, whether I agree with them or not.

The only gun law enacted in Texas that I disagree with is the recently passed Campus Carry law. The only law being talked about in Texas that I disagree with is Constitutional Carry.

As with global warming, this issue is far down the list as what is important to me when selecting a Presidential candidate.

If you call that someone who wants to disarm everyone then you are a loon.
Try to get it right next time, or close to right. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I assumed by your various post that you support the Liberal/Socialist/Progressive/Democrat Platform. That platform includes disarming America, if you believe the speeches of their front runner, Hillary.

If I am wrong, then I miss judged you.

Just so we are clear, I do believe that how a Supreme Court Nominee feels about the 2d Amendment is paramount in whether he, or she, is qualified to sit on the Court.

While I am not a religious person, I feel that our Bill of Rights is the closest thing to a sacred document that a secular society such as ours could have.

I assumed by your various post that you support the Liberal/Socialist/Progressive/Democrat Platform. That platform includes disarming America, if you believe the speeches of their front runner, Hillary.

If I am wrong, then I miss judged you.

Just so we are clear, I do believe that how a Supreme Court Nominee feels about the 2d Amendment is paramount in whether he, or she, is qualified to sit on the Court.

While I am not a religious person, I feel that our Bill of Rights is the closest thing to a sacred document that a secular society such as ours could have. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Not all people who are classified as "Liberal" believe the same way on all issues. I don't believe Clinton has a goal of disarming the country, but she will push for stronger gun control laws.

Do you think Hillary feels the same way? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

No one, you and I included, should make assumptions beyond what she has said on the subject. Here is the latest (last October) statements I could find on Clinton's gun control goals:

"In October, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced her gun control plan, promising that if she’s elected, she’ll ban some guns and impose other restrictive gun control laws, in some cases without Congress’ approval. Clinton’s plan would prohibit Americans from selling a “significant” number of privately owned guns without a license, prevent gun purchases by indefinitely delaying purchasers’ background checks, repeal the federal law that prevents gun control supporters from pursuing groundless lawsuits designed to stop gun sales by driving firearm manufacturers and dealers out of business, ban all semi-automatic shotguns and detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles (and some other categories of guns), ban the possession of firearms by people in troubled dating relationships without due process of law, and empower the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to revoke the licenses of dealers for unintentional recordkeeping errors."


No, I have to say I don't agree with her goals.

Not all people who are classified as "Liberal" believe the same way on all issues. I don't believe Clinton has a goal of disarming the country, but she will push for stronger gun control laws. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Those stronger laws will only be a burden to Law Abiding Citizens.

The only way Gun Laws will work is if you make committing a crime against another person with a firearm an automatic First Degree Felony, even a Capitol Crime. That means if you walk into a store and point a gun at the cashier, or yank a person out of a car while pointing a gun at them, or "pop a cap" on a crowd at a gathering, shoot a fellow criminal to " protect your turf", you would then be subject to what ever laws that State has in dealing with a Capitol Crime, that being, life without parol, or death.

The way to crack down on gun violence is to crack down on those who actually do it.

That alone is reason enough to vote for pinestraw.

how do you get 7-2 either way? right now it's "supposedly" split 4-4 after Scalia's death.
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Your question was answered somewhat by someone else but I'll expand.

As you said, court is now 4-4 with Scalia, a Conservative, needing to be replaced. If Clinton is elected, a Liberal-leaning person will be nominated, making the court 5-4 Liberal-leaning. If Trump is elected the court will be 5-4 Conservative-leaning.

Kennedy (Conservative) is almost 80.
Ginsberg (Liberal) is 83.
Breyer (Liberal) is 77.
Thomas (Conservative) is almost 68.

So, assuming the next President is in office 8 years, look at what ages the 4 above-mentioned Supreme Court Justices will be at the end of the term. 88, 91, 85, 76. If just the oldest 2 die, the court would probably be 6-3 either way. If all 4 die (or retire) in the next 8 years, the court could be 7-2.

Those stronger laws will only be a burden to Law Abiding Citizens.

The only way Gun Laws will work is if you make committing a crime against another person with a firearm an automatic First Degree Felony, even a Capitol Crime. That means if you walk into a store and point a gun at the cashier, or yank a person out of a car while pointing a gun at them, or "pop a cap" on a crowd at a gathering, shoot a fellow criminal to " protect your turf", you would then be subject to what ever laws that State has in dealing with a Capitol Crime, that being, life without parol, or death.

The way to crack down on gun violence is to crack down on those who actually do it. Originally Posted by Jackie S

I agree to some degree. But I also think that imposing gun control laws on law-abiding citizens is justified -- at times. Requiring citizens to obtain a CHL if they want to carry a concealed handgun in public is certainly a burden. Requiring citizens to be a certain age and mental state in order to purchase a gun is certainly a burden. Prohibiting people from entering my home or my former place of business with a gun is certainly a burden.

But I also ask myself if Clinton's proposed gun legislation will do much at all to cut down on the crime problem we have in this country and I have to say no.

I didn't know pine straw was an option. Pine straw, Obviously!

Your question was answered somewhat by someone else but I'll expand.

As you said, court is now 4-4 with Scalia, a Conservative, needing to be replaced. If Clinton is elected, a Liberal-leaning person will be nominated, making the court 5-4 Liberal-leaning. If Trump is elected the court will be 5-4 Conservative-leaning.

Kennedy (Conservative) is almost 80.
Ginsberg (Liberal) is 83.
Breyer (Liberal) is 77.
Thomas (Conservative) is almost 68.

So, assuming the next President is in office 8 years, look at what ages the 4 above-mentioned Supreme Court Justices will be at the end of the term. 88, 91, 85, 76. If just the oldest 2 die, the court would probably be 6-3 either way. If all 4 die (or retire) in the next 8 years, the court could be 7-2. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

When did Kennedy become a conservative? I suppose that next to Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagen he seems conservative but he was always the left leaning moderate before them.

Trump said he would post a list of potential high court nominees. I want to see if there are any originalists on it. If there are, I'd like to know how he will get them through the Senate. The only ones left on the court with any originalist leanings are Alito and Thomas. Kennedy and Roberts can't be trusted. The next 4 nominees have to be originalists. Unless Trump wins a huge landslide, and some weenie Republicans in the Senate are replaced by strong conservative or libertarian candidates, the Court, as a protector of freedom is dead.

I don't see it. Trump appears to believe in the power of government to solve problems. I don't expect to see an originalist appointed by him, which is why I want to see the list. And I expect the weenie Republicans to be replaced by Democrats. The cause of freedom is on the ropes.