Question what do you think ?

**larrymeyer** · November 6th, 2008, 05:08 PM

Now that the O won and he'll be appointing two Supreme Court Judges and Heller was a one vote win. Do you think another couple of liberals on the court will overturn Heller ????? And what would be the outcome of a Supreme Court decision that the 2nd amendment mean only the army or the Guard can have or possess weapons ?

I await your replies

**ThomasJ** · November 6th, 2008, 05:13 PM

I anticipate Ginsberg resigning now that a Marxist is in office, but he'll replace her with the same, so that'll be a push.

**billamj** · November 6th, 2008, 05:15 PM

I think that it is entirely dependent on who he gets to replace. If he gets Ginsberg and Souter it is one thing, if it is Ginsberg and Kennedy or Souter and Scalia then we are in deep shit.

**MTechnik** · November 6th, 2008, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by billamj

I think that it is entirely dependent on who he gets to replace. If he gets Ginsberg and Souter it is one thing, if it is Ginsberg and Kennedy or Souter and Scalia then we are in deep shit.

Pretty much dead-on, but a bit more to it:

First - supreme court appointments aren't "iron clad" - J.P. Stevens was appointed by Ford, a Republican, and many consider Stevens to be left-leaning. Souter (another left-leaner) was appointed by G H W Bush. A lot of times their 'opinions' change once they are appointed to a life-long position.

Second - if they were conservative (Rehnquist and O'Connor) and were close to retirement, they went out under G.W.B in the last term. If they are old and lib-leaning, they held on with every last breath - like Stevens (88 y.o.) they're probably going to step down now (stevens, souter, ginsburg).

As it is, the democrats don't have a supermajority in the senate - they can't just shove anybody they want to through the process - the republicans can still stonewall it with filibustering.

So, I see no great need to panic. Now, if after 8 years of Obama, it looks like another lib will follow, then the older justices start to retire... but if there are 12 years of dems, with majority in the senate, the country has taken a greater overall 'swing' and there will likely be other issues to contend with.

**dc dalton** · November 6th, 2008, 08:04 PM

I was just reading about this today for the life of me I can't find the damn article though, the two judges that are ready to retire are both liberal judges so he will be replacing them (of course) with liberals. He may not get the chance to change the balance for some time (let's hope)

On another note I found something out about him in that same article, he was a professor of constitutional law when he taught. I don't know how that might change who he picks but in fact he knows the constitution inside out .. I guess only time will tell.

**MichaelJ** · November 6th, 2008, 08:14 PM

Originally Posted by dc dalton

I was just reading about this today for the life of me I can't find the damn article though, the two judges that are ready to retire are both liberal judges so he will be replacing them (of course) with liberals. He may not get the chance to change the balance for some time (let's hope)

On another note I found something out about him in that same article, he was a professor of constitutional law when he taught. I don't know how that might change who he picks but in fact he knows the constitution inside out .. I guess only time will tell.

Unfortunatly he takes a modern rather then traditionalist view twords it.

**imperialism2024** · November 6th, 2008, 11:37 PM

The Supreme Court is a joke. It interprets the Constitution is a way most agreeable to current administration, as any radical ruling would not have teeth due to the administration's neglect to abide by it. But aside from that, neither "liberal" nor "conservative" courts have upheld the Constitution for a very long time, granting more and more power to the government that gives them jobs and ignoring that most restrictive document even faster. Most 5th graders can interpret the Constitution more accurately than Supreme Court justices, but then again, they have no agenda.

Remember how in Heller, the majority opinion said, "'Shall not be infringed' means just that, and all regulation of small arms for the individual is held unconstitutional regardless of the emotional responses to such arms by the uninformed and the power-hungry"?

Nope, I don't remember it either.

[/rant]

**mojo** · November 7th, 2008, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by MichaelJ

Unfortunatly he takes a modern rather then traditionalist view twords it.

Yep ... I believe that this is a clip of him saying that it's a living document!

**kevindsingleton** · November 7th, 2008, 12:38 PM

Clinton taught Constitutional law, too, I believe. That, alone, doesn't mean they understand the document, or that they've even read it. The only thing you can be sure of: Obama knows which parts he'll ignore, or downright violate.

**nerf** · November 7th, 2008, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by MTechnik

Pretty much dead-on, but a bit more to it:

First - supreme court appointments aren't "iron clad" - J.P. Stevens was appointed by Ford, a Republican, and many consider Stevens to be left-leaning. Souter (another left-leaner) was appointed by G H W Bush. A lot of times their 'opinions' change once they are appointed to a life-long position.

Second - if they were conservative (Rehnquist and O'Connor) and were close to retirement, they went out under G.W.B in the last term. If they are old and lib-leaning, they held on with every last breath - like Stevens (88 y.o.) they're probably going to step down now (stevens, souter, ginsburg).

As it is, the democrats don't have a supermajority in the senate - they can't just shove anybody they want to through the process - the republicans can still stonewall it with filibustering.

So, I see no great need to panic. Now, if after 8 years of Obama, it looks like another lib will follow, then the older justices start to retire... but if there are 12 years of dems, with majority in the senate, the country has taken a greater overall 'swing' and there will likely be other issues to contend with.

Good examples, but those were Republican appointed that vote left. "Democrats" seem to get it right, like Hugo Black

It is possible a 2 term Obama would get 4 or more Justice nominees, since the average is almost 2 per term.

Time to panic isn't far off.

http://dailywrit.com/2008/08/08/stat...supermajority/

In short, if Obama wins, he could reasonably replace six Justices (all but Thomas, Alito and Roberts) over eight years, loosely redefining the Court as a 6-3 liberal majority.