Red Mosquito

B wrote:

Chris_H_2 wrote:

stip wrote:what has been the constitutional justification (if any)for denying children or people with mental disabilities (or any other specified population) the right to own a gun?

That the Constitution doesn't grant the carte blanche, unconditional right to possess guns to every citizen?

It's funny that most the conservative talking points claim that it does grant such a right, but also, the Democrats are failing to address the "real problem" of mental illness.

the republicans are such hypocrites when it comes to reading things into the constitution that don't exist (see, e.g., their varying interpretations of the 2nd amendment and the 1st amendment's separation of church and state).

So George Mason has renamed its law school:

http://www.law.gmu.edu/news/2016/scalia ... nouncement

It shall be called the Antonin Scalia School Of Law

Sometimes the universe makes sense

Chris_H_2 wrote:the republicans are such hypocrites when it comes to reading things into the constitution that don't exist (see, e.g., their varying interpretations of the 2nd amendment and the 1st amendment's separation of church and state).

I have found that when people truly believe the earth is only 2,000 years old and that everything in the bible actually happened, their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is the least of their problems. I think every person should have a mental evaluation before they are allowed to vote.

Green Habit wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:Someone who knows more than me: could there be any way for the Senate to delay a replacement until next spring? Have we ever gone an entire calendar year with 8 judges?

Absolutely. The Court can run alright with 8 justices, you'll just have a few "affirmed by an equally divided Court" rulings that will reach the Court a year or two later after the ninth Justice is filled. The stakes are too high for the GOP to not be obstructionist.

Well, I nailed this one...

Green Habit wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:Someone who knows more than me: could there be any way for the Senate to delay a replacement until next spring? Have we ever gone an entire calendar year with 8 judges?

Absolutely. The Court can run alright with 8 justices, you'll just have a few "affirmed by an equally divided Court" rulings that will reach the Court a year or two later after the ninth Justice is filled. The stakes are too high for the GOP to not be obstructionist.

Well, I nailed this one...

Congraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatulaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaations.

Spoiler: show

Green Habit wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:Someone who knows more than me: could there be any way for the Senate to delay a replacement until next spring? Have we ever gone an entire calendar year with 8 judges?

Absolutely. The Court can run alright with 8 justices, you'll just have a few "affirmed by an equally divided Court" rulings that will reach the Court a year or two later after the ninth Justice is filled. The stakes are too high for the GOP to not be obstructionist.

Well, I nailed this one...

Lock 'Er UP!!

Simple Torture wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:Someone who knows more than me: could there be any way for the Senate to delay a replacement until next spring? Have we ever gone an entire calendar year with 8 judges?

Absolutely. The Court can run alright with 8 justices, you'll just have a few "affirmed by an equally divided Court" rulings that will reach the Court a year or two later after the ninth Justice is filled. The stakes are too high for the GOP to not be obstructionist.

Well, I nailed this one...

Congraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatulaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaations.

Spoiler: show

You and me both, friend.

You hang in there, Notorious. Four more years.

My friends were discussing whether Obama should just appoint Garland and let the Republicans try to figure out how to get him out.

Is that possible?

Likely?

B wrote:My friends were discussing whether Obama should just appoint Garland and let the Republicans try to figure out how to get him out.

Is that possible?

Likely?

I'm pretty sure recess appointments need to be confirmed once the Senate comes back; i.e., he'd be able to sit the bench and hear cases while congress wasn't in session, but once the Senate returns, they could boot him. GH can probably confirm this or call me an idiot.

I'm pretty sure he can do both.

I'm thinking that all of SCOTUS--and at least Ginsburg and Breyer--would find this distasteful. The Court doesn't like being thrown into the center of a partisan mess.

Green Habit wrote:I'm thinking that all of SCOTUS--and at least Ginsburg and Breyer--would find this distasteful. The Court doesn't like being thrown into the center of a partisan mess.

But am I an idiot???

Simple Torture wrote:

Green Habit wrote:I'm thinking that all of SCOTUS--and at least Ginsburg and Breyer--would find this distasteful. The Court doesn't like being thrown into the center of a partisan mess.

But am I an idiot???

Nope!

Obama does have a track record of BS recess appointments. Has anyone else tried that maneuver and gotten smacked, or was he an innovator in this area?

Green Habit wrote:I'm thinking that all of SCOTUS--and at least Ginsburg and Breyer--would find this distasteful. The Court doesn't like being thrown into the center of a partisan mess.

Didn't Ginsburg put her own self into a partisan mess just this year?

... and how come we use POTUS and SCOTUS, but not COTUS?