Trump "doesn't like" silencers

[SQLGeek]

That Trump supposedly opened the door for abuse by the executive branch.

You know, because no president has ever done so before.

 

[easy rider]

Blathering.

 

[HKShooter65]

The above event is a foregone conclusion with or without Trump. .

No.

If the 2 other responsible federal branches had the balls to stand up to Trump's dictatorial governing style then those same leaders could, similarly, shut down the inevitable future Democratic executive power abuser.

No one American should ever wield such capacity, particularly in such current times of peace and prosperity.
Executive branch emergency faculties are being wielded by POTUS's convenience, impulses and ego for relatively mundane domestic events and policy.

The constitutional checks and balances are being overriden and corrupted and should be reasserted rather than embraced and welcomed for political expediency.
Were Trump to think that banning AR15s advanced his political aspirations they would, today, be contraband.

Our constitutional design is that he have no such imperial power.

You guys will join my choir if and when he bans silencers (or suppressors).

 

[easy rider]

No.

If the 2 other responsible federal branches had the balls to stand up to Trump's dictatorial governing style then those same leaders could, similarly, shut down the inevitable future Democratic executive power abuser.

No one American should ever wield such power, particularly in such current times of peace and prosperity.

Trump is now a dictator? What alternate reality are you living in?

 

[HKShooter65]

Trump is now a dictator? What alternate reality are you living in?

Alderon.

 

[jrbfishn]

No.

If the 2 other responsible federal branches had the balls to stand up to Trump's dictatorial governing style then those same leaders could, similarly, shut down the inevitable future Democratic executive power abuser.

No one American should ever wield such capacity, particularly in such current times of peace and prosperity.
Executive branch emergency faculties are being wielded by POTUS's convenience, impulses and ego for relatively mundane domestic events and policy.

The constitutional checks and balances are being overriden and corrupted and should be reasserted rather than embraced and welcomed for political expediency.
Were Trump to think that banning AR15s advanced his political aspirations they would, today, be contraband.

Our constitutional design is that he have no such imperial power.

You guys will join my choir if and when he bans silencers (or suppressors).

You keep trying to convince us that the progressive left are sane ones.

You are not doing so well at it.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[diesel1959]

I don't recall Trump being the one going around gloating about having a "pen and a phone" . . .

 

[Sublime]

I was told not to feed the troll in another thread. I think you'll are feeding the troll. I get it, it is hard to let some of that go without replying. I am in the camp of banning bump stocks bad (still believe we are not gettong the full story on Vegas), not supporting suppressor legalization bad but all things considered still way ahead of the left.

Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

No.

If the 2 other responsible federal branches had the balls to stand up to Trump's dictatorial governing style then those same leaders could, similarly, shut down the inevitable future Democratic executive power abuser.

No one American should ever wield such capacity, particularly in such current times of peace and prosperity.
Executive branch emergency faculties are being wielded by POTUS's convenience, impulses and ego for relatively mundane domestic events and policy.

The constitutional checks and balances are being overriden and corrupted and should be reasserted rather than embraced and welcomed for political expediency.
Were Trump to think that banning AR15s advanced his political aspirations they would, today, be contraband.

Our constitutional design is that he have no such imperial power.

You guys will join my choir if and when he bans silencers (or suppressors).

Congress can vote to retake all the powers they have pawned off to the executive branch.


I have no idea how SCOTUS is as powerless as you claim. Can you expand on that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JeepFiend]

Congress can vote to retake all the powers they have pawned off to the executive branch.


I have no idea how SCOTUS is as powerless as you claim. Can you expand on that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IMHO, much like Congress, SCOTUS is giving up it's power by choosing to not view cases that would dictate the outcome of future actions. They're refusal to even listen to cases is akin to the castration of the court. But that's just my opinion.

 

[Younggun]

IMHO, much like Congress, SCOTUS is giving up it's power by choosing to not view cases that would dictate the outcome of future actions. They're refusal to even listen to cases is akin to the castration of the court. But that's just my opinion.

They do turn down some cases I would prefer they hear, but your post made me curious.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/justicecaseload.aspx


“Each Term, approximately 7,000-8,000 new cases are filed in the Supreme Court....

Plenary review, with oral arguments by attorneys, is currently granted in about 80 of those cases each Term, and the Court typically disposes of about 100 or more cases without plenary review. “

I don’t think they have the ability to hear them all.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JeepFiend]

I don’t think they have the ability to hear them all.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, of course they can't hear them all. But I do believe they selectively turn down cases they don't wish to make a ruling on, i.e., with current talk of suppressor bans, they chose not to entertain the present GOA case regarding suppressors and the NFA. Sure, there's some obvious bias on my part, but it seems SCOTUS has chosen to avoid 2A cases for some time now. In doing so, they've left the 2nd Amendment on the chopping block for the Legislative and Executive branches to do as they will without debate from the Judicial branch. The balance of power has obviously tilted in the last decade, and as of yet, the SCOTUS remains an uninterested branch in regards to it.

But in contrast, they will take up issues regarding gay marriage, which really has no constitutional grounds. Marriage is a religious ceremony. As long as folks are free to practice a religion, and the government doesn't impose their will on the practicing of religion, it isn't a constitutional issue. The infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, however, is in direct contrast to the words written in the constitution. So by choosing to take gay marriage issues but not 2A issues, the SCOTUS has neutered itself.

Again, just my opinion.

 

[Younggun]

No, of course they can't hear them all. But I do believe they selectively turn down cases they don't wish to make a ruling on, i.e., with current talk of suppressor bans, they chose not to entertain the present GOA case regarding suppressors and the NFA. Sure, there's some obvious bias on my part, but it seems SCOTUS has chosen to avoid 2A cases for some time now. In doing so, they've left the 2nd Amendment on the chopping block for the Legislative and Executive branches to do as they will without debate from the Judicial branch. The balance of power has obviously tilted in the last decade, and as of yet, the SCOTUS remains an uninterested branch in regards to it.

But in contrast, they will take up issues regarding gay marriage, which really has no constitutional grounds. Marriage is a religious ceremony. As long as folks are free to practice a religion, and the government doesn't impose their will on the practicing of religion, it isn't a constitutional issue. The infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, however, is in direct contrast to the words written in the constitution. So by choosing to take gay marriage issues but not 2A issues, the SCOTUS has neutered itself.

Again, just my opinion.

As long as marriage has anything to do with benefits, insurance, pensions, etc it will be a government issue. Hence the reason for SCOTUS taking cases on the subject.

I’d love the see the gov out of marriage (aside from certain protections for minors and maybe a couple other odd situations) but I doubt it will ever happen.

SCOTUS can still take any case it chooses so “neutered” really isn’t the right word. It’s exercising it’s power to turn down a case just as it can exercise its power to take a case. As much as I get upset about the cases they turn down at times I see no sign that the court has given away any of its balancing power.

I think in some ways it’s simply a matter of a certain justice not being the guy people thought he was, or that the left claimed he would be.

iIRC, it takes 3 justices to review and choose to accept a case and I don’t know how they decide which justices review each case. But it would only take one of the activist judges to get a case turned down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JeepFiend]

As long as marriage has anything to do with benefits, insurance, pensions, etc it will be a government issue. Hence the reason for SCOTUS taking cases on the subject.

I’d love the see the gov out of marriage (aside from certain protections for minors and maybe a couple other odd situations) but I doubt it will ever happen.

SCOTUS can still take any case it chooses so “neutered” really isn’t the right word. It’s exercising it’s power to turn down a case just as it can exercise its power to take a case. As much as I get upset about the cases they turn down at times I see no sign that the court has given away any of its balancing power.

I think in some ways it’s simply a matter of a certain justice not being the guy people thought he was, or that the left claimed he would be.

iIRC, it takes 3 justices to review and choose to accept a case and I don’t know how they decide which justices review each case. But it would only take one of the activist judges to get a case turned down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You make valid points. And perhaps neutered isn't the proper term.

But I would say that the choices you make dictate the quality of your character. When Supreme Court chooses not to take cases regarding any of the Bill of Rights, they have side stepped the duty to which they were appointed. Sometimes inaction can be just as devastating as malevolent action.

Again, just an opinion. But I'm quickly losing hope for this country. Of course, I'm also a pessimist.

 

[Younggun]

You make valid points. And perhaps neutered isn't the proper term.

But I would say that the choices you make dictate the quality of your character. When Supreme Court chooses not to take cases regarding any of the Bill of Rights, they have side stepped the duty to which they were appointed. Sometimes inaction can be just as devastating as malevolent action.

Again, just an opinion. But I'm quickly losing hope for this country. Of course, I'm also a pessimist.

Enjoyed the discussion.

I don’t think we disagree all that much where it matters.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk