Capitol Armory ad

The Great Debate

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • gambler

    Well-Known
    BANNED!!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 31, 2020
    1,092
    96
    Texas
    I really hate to play Captain Obvious, but what is the purpose of this thread when we already have one that was started last night on the same subject?


    View attachment 228743
    Because everyone doesn't always see every thread and the search function is not very good.

    See post #38 where this was addressed and if you did a search you would have known that already.

    Or, just skip the ones you don't feel like you want to comment on.
     

    ZX9RCAM

    Over the Rainbow bridge...
    TGT Supporter
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    May 14, 2008
    59,732
    96
    The Woodlands, Tx.

    Younggun

    Certified Jackass
    TGT Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Jul 31, 2011
    53,609
    96
    hill co.
    Well the Supreme Court really has nothing to do with "destroying the Constitution." They don't vote on changes to it or have any input into any proposed changes. They have nothing to do with that.

    She can be confirmed, (and will be confirmed), and if we lose the POTUS and majority in the Senate, the Supreme Court can do nothing about anything they pass except rule if it is against the Constitution. There are many, many things that can be done that don't require approval of the SCOTUS. Like, taxing ammunition, packing the supreme court, changing rules about filibuster in the Senate.

    The court could still rule that the tax is overly burdensome and an infringement on 2A rights.

    Unless of course it were stacked...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,021
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    The court could still rule that the tax is overly burdensome and an infringement on 2A rights.

    Unless of course it were stacked...


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    It was pointed out by McConnell, IIRC in response the Democrats stacking the courts, I think it was a threat by Pelosi, that trying to stack the courts could have reverse effect in the future. What would stop the Republicans from doing the same thing at a future time to swing the momentum in the opposite direction?
     

    bbbass

    Looking Up!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 2, 2020
    2,825
    96
    NE Orygun
    It was pointed out by McConnell, IIRC in response the Democrats stacking the courts, I think it was a threat by Pelosi, that trying to stack the courts could have reverse effect in the future. What would stop the Republicans from doing the same thing at a future time to swing the momentum in the opposite direction?

    Good question!

    Years from now, we could have a SCOTUS with 200 judges. Then it is no longer a "Republic". IIRC, our forefathers wanted a strong Senate, a feature of a Republic, balanced by Representatives, balancing the executive power, and SCOTUS to have final say over whether laws adhere to the Constitution. Capt Obvious, hee hee, knows this has all gotten out of whack with all branches grasping and wielding excess power.
     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,021
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    Good question!

    Years from now, we could have a SCOTUS with 200 judges. Then it is no longer a "Republic". IIRC, our forefathers wanted a strong Senate, a feature of a Republic, balanced by Representatives, balancing the executive power, and SCOTUS to have final say over whether laws adhere to the Constitution. Capt Obvious, hee hee, knows this has all gotten out of whack with all branches grasping and wielding excess power.

    Exactly. At what point does that stacking stop? Because, if we start down that road, every time there is a shift in power in the leadership of our country, there would be more stacking to further shift that balance.

    Then it isn't about what the SCOTUS stands for any longer, as they just become another political tool to be used by whomever might be currently in power.
     

    bbbass

    Looking Up!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 2, 2020
    2,825
    96
    NE Orygun
    Then it isn't about what the SCOTUS stands for any longer, as they just become another political tool to be used by whomever might be currently in power.

    Well said!!!

    Additionally, they would no doubt develop agendas of their own (gee where did I get that thought) and the legislating from the bench would be atrocious!!!
     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,021
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    Well said!!!

    Additionally, they would no doubt develop agendas of their own (gee where did I get that thought) and the legislating from the bench would be atrocious!!!

    The very first question posed to each candidate last night was about the nomination of a SC justice.

    What Biden failed to understand, it is within Trump's power to nominate a candidate to be considered for appointment. That is within the Constitution. Plain and simple. Nothing I remember said anything about waiting to see who gets elected, and then they get to choose the nominee for SC justice.

    I'm thinking Biden wants to rewrite the Constitution to fit his needs and wants!
     

    bbbass

    Looking Up!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 2, 2020
    2,825
    96
    NE Orygun
    What Biden failed to understand, it is within Trump's power to nominate a candidate to be considered for appointment. That is within the Constitution. Plain and simple. Nothing I remember said anything about waiting to see who gets elected, and then they get to choose the nominee for SC justice.

    Unlike what the D's and MSM is saying, it is Trump's Constitutional DUTY to nominate a candidate. Impeach him? He could actually be impeached for not doing so. That said, they have set the bar so low they can impeach for anything they please now.

    It is the Senate's Constitutional DUTY to consider the candidate. IMO the Repubs should have considered Garland Merrick, and voted him DOWN. It is their cowardice then that has given the D's this opportunity to cry foul. I hope McConnell stands firm. I just wish we were going strait to a vote instead of the zoo of judiciary committee hearings. They are already posturing with several D's refusing to meet with Coney-Barrett.
     

    bbbass

    Looking Up!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 2, 2020
    2,825
    96
    NE Orygun
    Interesting theory...

    I hear Maxwell Smart in my head...

    x9NtTAPD-58g4qLbhEvWtr2pD9mYbfwafy0wq-SrWWa62iJf-HqpeKcroZzo7Jmyv5BbzEsPRR3AzMJ1uK2ELSM3yUbQRlgqi33EkYaPh9euzx01eOU3W8GlHadTNh1oC6adV8-RMqSWRmY


    images
     
    Last edited:

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,021
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    Unlike what the D's and MSM is saying, it is Trump's Constitutional DUTY to nominate a candidate. Impeach him? He could actually be impeached for not doing so. That said, they have set the bar so low they can impeach for anything they please now.

    It is the Senate's Constitutional DUTY to consider the candidate. IMO the Repubs should have considered Garland Merrick, and voted him DOWN. It is their cowardice then that has given the D's this opportunity to cry foul. I hope McConnell stands firm. I just wish we were going strait to a vote instead of the zoo of judiciary committee hearings. They are already posturing with several D's refusing to meet with Coney-Barrett.

    Exactly. Good points.

    Let the Democrats refuse. It probably won't stop her getting appointed though.

    Nancy pulled off the "impeachment" threat the other day! She knows it's a weak attempt to counter Trump's nomination, and it could backfire on the Democrats, just like the last "impeachment"!
     

    bbbass

    Looking Up!!
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 2, 2020
    2,825
    96
    NE Orygun
    Nancy pulled off the "impeachment" threat the other day! She knows it's a weak attempt to counter Trump's nomination, and it could backfire on the Democrats, just like the last "impeachment"!

    I think it didn't play well with the party and party base. They know another impeachment in this hour would be a gift to Trump.
     
    Top Bottom