Obama & your 2nd Amendment Rights

SledDog

If he (read-some law firm) could get the case in front of the supremes again. And that's a big if. The court doesn't like to re-hear stuff that they have ruled on... And since they were reviewing a case from a lower court, I believe, you would have to have a lower court "reverse" how the supreme ruled. And that's not going to happen.

And just because someone wants to get a case in front of the court, doesn't mean they will hear it... Just look at how many death row cases the supremes decided not to hear....

Hears some info on the court...

John G. Roberts, Jr - DOB January 27, 1955. Nominated by Bush
John Paul Stevens - DOB April 20, 1920. Nominated by Ford
Antonin Scalia - DOB March 11, 1936. Nominated by Reagan
Anthony M. Kennedy - DOB July 23, 1936. Nominated by Reagan
David Hackett Souter - DOB September 17, 1939. Nominated by Bush, SR
Clarence Thomas - DOB June 23, 1948. Nominated by Bush, SR
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - DOB March 15, 1933. Nominated by Clinton
Stephen G. Breyer - DOB August 15, 1938. Nominated by Clinton
Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr - DOB April 1, 1950. Nominated by Bush

Here's how they voted on the 2nd amendment issue (quoted from the LA times article Supreme Court proclaims 2nd Amendment guarantees right to keep guns - Los Angeles Times):

(for) Scalia’s opinion in District of Columbia vs. Heller was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

(against) Joining Stevens in dissent were Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Simtty, you need to check who each of the supremes were nominated by...

Only 2 of the 4 against were nominated by the Dems. The others were nominated by the Reps.

So what does this prove... Well, just because the pro-gun folks nominated a supreme, doesn't mean they are going to vote the "Party Line". So, I wouldn't assume (and you know what that means) just because a Dem nominates a supreme (and if they get past congress and the senate) they will vote the party line...

Not wanting to hi-jack this thread, or start anything, I'm just stating an idea....
You would think with so many Rep supremes they would have looked at Roe V. Wade. The Rep have been talking about that one for years. And yet nothing.

__________________
77 FXE "Shaker", 94 FLHR "Primitive Man", 96 FXD "Miss Low"
My Newest "Harley", MV Agusta F4 1000 S (05)
Track Day Bike: 2000 Ducati 996 SPS

smitty901

HE only needs to put 2 on the court and it is all over.
Two most importnat things to party line Dems taking guns and roeV wade.

__________________
The Infantry leads the way

SledDog

And just as I said.... Just because a party nominates a supreme doesn't mean they will vote the party line.... Or you would think the Rep are looking to roast the 2 supremes that voted against the NRA. Just goes to show, you can be sure just how someone will view an issue.

Or did you miss that? But it appears you your locked into your view and that's fine...

So instead of trying to pass on anymore info, I'm gonna pass on the rest of this thread....

__________________
77 FXE "Shaker", 94 FLHR "Primitive Man", 96 FXD "Miss Low"
My Newest "Harley", MV Agusta F4 1000 S (05)
Track Day Bike: 2000 Ducati 996 SPS

Fourdogs

This post...are comments are meant for information only...First off let me make it clear! I am for gun ownership...I do own a few rifles and shotguns..no hand guns.I am a Independent so I try and listen to both sides ...even if the majority of the information seen on Political Ads are bogus to say the least. I have to make my choice as what I believe is right...Back to the Supreme Court of the U.S...there job from what I remember from my school days which was irons ago..was they are there to interrupt the laws of The US and State laws..key word is " Interrupt "...actually they can't enforce any laws.They can base decision on interruption..ie the D.C. ban on hand guns this past year...which was a State law....so hears bout what I can remember....The Constitution does not explicitly grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial review; nevertheless, the power of the Supreme Court to overturn laws and executive actions it deems unlawful or unconstitutional is a well-established precedent. Many of the Founding Fathers accepted the notion of judicial review; in Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton writes: "A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute." The Supreme Court first established its power to declare laws unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison (1803), consummating the system of checks and balances.

The Supreme Court cannot directly enforce its rulings; instead, it relies on respect for the Constitution and for the law for adherence to its judgments. One notable instance of non acquiescence came in 1832, when the state of Georgia ignored the Supreme Court's decision in Worcester v. Georgia. President Andrew Jackson, who sided with the Georgia courts, is supposed to have remarked, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!";[23] however, this quotation is likely apocryphal.[citation needed] State militia in the South also resisted the desegregation of public schools after the 1954 judgment Brown v. Board of Education. More recently, many feared that President Richard Nixon would refuse to comply with the Court's order in United States v. Nixon (1974) to surrender the Watergate tapes. Nixon, however, ultimately complied with the Supreme Court's ruling...

I do have one thing to say....Palin is a Hot....!

Les Williamson

From my point of view Obama says whatever it takes to cater to the people he is speaking to. Neither one is a favorite of mine for that matter. The lesser of two evils so to speak. Good thing we live in a country where we actually have a choice.

shoveled71

Obama dont have to outright ban guns, but with a demo. house and senate he will tax ammo. so much it will be hard for anyone to afford to buy it, he also thinks its alright to sue gun manufactures for criminals actions with a gun, he will sue gun makers out of business, and with a demo. house and senate he WILL get these things done, better think long and hard before you pull the lever for him, no one party should be in control of all govt., you see what happened when repubs. had control for 6 years, when one party has complete control it swings too far to the right or in Obamas case too far to the left. Spike