TexasCHLforum.com

crazy2medic wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:09 pm I know those Justices are cut from better stuff than me, but if I sat on that bench I'd rule against whatever the Dems wanted just because of their threat

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh styled Justice Neil Gorsuch the “crossover sensation” of the court’s 2017-2018 term. The justice played to type again this year, joining his liberal colleagues to form a 5-4 majority in four cases.

anygunanywhere wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:23 am Liberal Justices Are Still Notching Victories Despite Conservative Supreme Court

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh styled Justice Neil Gorsuch the “crossover sensation” of the court’s 2017-2018 term. The justice played to type again this year, joining his liberal colleagues to form a 5-4 majority in four cases.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/08/14/scot ... rossovers/

anygunanywhere wrote: Thu Aug 15, 2019 9:23 am Liberal Justices Are Still Notching Victories Despite Conservative Supreme Court

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh styled Justice Neil Gorsuch the “crossover sensation” of the court’s 2017-2018 term. The justice played to type again this year, joining his liberal colleagues to form a 5-4 majority in four cases.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/08/14/scot ... rossovers/

Grayling813 wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:10 pm

jerry_r60 wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:56 am As was stated earlier, manipulating the number of Justices is how they can remake the court. Here is some quick history (from https://www.history.com/news/7-things-y ... reme-court)

2. There haven’t always been nine justices on the court.
The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since. In 1937, in an effort to create a court more friendly to his New Deal programs, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to convince Congress to pass legislation that would allow a new justice to be added to the court—for a total of up to 15 members—for every justice over 70 who opted not to retire. Congress didn’t go for FDR’s plan.

Okay, they have a plan and it's Constitutionally allowed. Best of luck to them....having an overwhelming socialist SCOTUS doesn't mean 600 million firearms are going to be willingly turned in or confiscated.

Rob72 wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:51 pm

Grayling813 wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:10 pm

jerry_r60 wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 11:56 am As was stated earlier, manipulating the number of Justices is how they can remake the court. Here is some quick history (from https://www.history.com/news/7-things-y ... reme-court)

2. There haven’t always been nine justices on the court.
The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since. In 1937, in an effort to create a court more friendly to his New Deal programs, President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to convince Congress to pass legislation that would allow a new justice to be added to the court—for a total of up to 15 members—for every justice over 70 who opted not to retire. Congress didn’t go for FDR’s plan.

Okay, they have a plan and it's Constitutionally allowed. Best of luck to them....having an overwhelming socialist SCOTUS doesn't mean 600 million firearms are going to be willingly turned in or confiscated.

That assumes that the some of the owners are willing to take a stand. I've said for a long time that, "welfare checks," anytime EMS goes to a home is the likely way it will start. If the property owner doesn't give them up voluntarily, and weapons are found subsequent to a search, the owner becomes ineligible for XXX government services (Medicare/Medicade, EMS service, etc.,etc..).

The only way that doesn't work is if LEO, as a whole refuses to pursue, and EMS/Fire, as a whole, refuse to ask/pursue. If jobs and benefits are on the line, are there enough with the character to step beyond political association (Dem/Rep) and support the Constitution? I am doubtful, at best.

RoyGBiv wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 2:36 pm Will any of the liberal Justices speak out against this?

Would be fun to hear RGB unload on these traitors.

crazy2medic wrote: Wed Aug 14, 2019 12:09 pm I know those Justices are cut from better stuff than me, but if I sat on that bench I'd rule against whatever the Dems wanted just because of their threat