TexasCHLforum.com

The nominee could also withdraw.

I think the republicans have done a lot of harm by being afraid to do what is right and trying to play in the middle because they are afraid of what might happen. The democrats don't sorry about playing in the middle and are as far left as they can while the republicans are afraid to be too far right conservative.

Playing not to lose usually ends up in losing. They won both houses of congress the last election and they still have been steamrolled by the president and democrat leadership.

oohrah wrote:I thought asking this question in this thread was appropriate: Heller was in 2008. We already had CHL and right to purchase/keep arms. Even if Garland somehow helps reverse Heller, how does that change what we had before 2008?

Not all states or jurisdictions recognized the right to keep and bear arms. Heller reaffirmed that for those jurisdictions that did not recognize the right. It is always good for the supreme court to support our rights whether or not they are being infringed upon. The fact this guy has been against our rights in the past indicates he may decide a case in the future that negatively impacts our rights.

We can't always just look at what effects us individually at the moment. We need to consider a nominee's or candidate's principles and use that as a basis to predict future actions and decisions. Considering only the individual here and now effects is what has gotten us in the mess we are in as a country.

Bottom line, he could make a ruling down the road that could jeopardize our rights to keep and bear arms based upon his views and past positions.

Redneck_Buddha wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Keep in mind, meeting with him does not mean having a confirmation hearing or Senate vote. Also, I bet some want to explain to him it's nothing personal they aren't going to consider him.

I on the other hand, would let the nomination languish but that may not be the best strategy. I wouldn't care if they voted on him as long as it was assured he wouldn't be approved. That would be risky though.

You mean they should Bork him?

Your comment prompted me to do a quick Google search. Found some interesting reading. Also note some of the players back then are still around. Regenerates my desire and enthusiasm for term limits.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_ ... nomination

Keep in mind, meeting with him does not mean having a confirmation hearing or Senate vote. Also, I bet some want to explain to him it's nothing personal they aren't going to consider him.

I on the other hand, would let the nomination languish but that may not be the best strategy. I wouldn't care if they voted on him as long as it was assured he wouldn't be approved. That would be risky though.

The Biden Rule.

This guy will do significant damage to 2nd Amendment rights. Word is quite a few republican GOP establishment highly regard him.

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-mem ... ck-garland

He would reverse Heller.

On top of that, he is from Chicago.