Justice Scalia passing, now what?

[dammitman]

so here we have the worst case scenerio. a conservative judge gone even before the next election and obozo getting his chance to change the history of the court. i can only see bad things coming from this whole thing. uno just know there is gonna be a real strong run on items comming again and this time its gonna be for real.

[Madloader]

We can only hope that the Republicans will do the right thing... Mitch McConnell is talking the game, let's see if he walks the game.

[oldbarnowl]

Heartbreaking, he was the strongest voice for the 2nd Amendment. So you may all know...

EXCERPT : FROM SUPREME COURT REVIEW :
District of Columbia v. Heller

For the first time in seven decades, the Court considered the meaning of the Second Amendment and its relationship to gun control laws. The District of Columbia had passed legislation, the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, barring the registration of handguns, requiring pistol owners to have licenses, and mandating that any legal firearms must be kept unloaded and disassembled or trigger-locked in the home. A group of private gun owners, including Dick Heller, a licensed special police officer for the District of Columbia who had been denied a handgun permit, brought suit claiming that the District’s laws violated their Second Amendment rights.

The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit had held that the challenged laws were unconstitutional because the Second Amendment “protects an individual right to keep and bear arms . . . premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense.” The Court found that the Second Amendment was not limited to militia service, “nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.” Since handguns are “arms,” the Court held that the District’s ban on handguns was unconstitutional, although the right to own them may be subject to reasonable restrictions.

The Court also struck down the requirement to keep all firearms unloaded and disassembled. The Court said that the requirement amounted to a complete ban on functional firearms and the provision “amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense.”

The Supreme Court affirmed 5-4, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with militia service and protects the right to use such arms for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home. The majority found that the District’s requirement to keep firearms in the home inoperable at all times was unconstitutional because it made it impossible to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense. Heller must therefore be granted a license to possess a handgun inside his home.

The majority, in an opinion by Justice Scalia, examined the text of the Second Amendment and found that it codified a “right of the people,” language which is used in other individual-rights contexts, such as the preamble (“We the people”) and the Tenth Amendment (powers not given to the federal government are reserved to “the people”). Other constitutional provisions do not use “right of the people” to refer to anything other than an individual right. Justice Scalia consulted contemporary dictionaries from the drafting era to interpret “keep and bear arms” as having the ordinary meaning of to “have weapons.” In support of this reasoning, he cited nine state constitutional provisions written during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, which enshrined the right to “bear arms” that clearly referred to individuals’ rights. Although Justice Scalia acknowledged that “bear arms” was frequently used in the military context, he insisted it was not therefore expressly limited to that context. In his interpretation of the Second Amendment, Justice Scalia relied heavily on the historical context in which it arose, citing Blackstone and English theorists’ conceptions of self-preservation.

Consistent with English and American precedent, the majority held that the prefatory clause did not limit the scope of the operative clause. That is, the Second Amendment did not limit the operation of the “right to bear arms” to the “militia.” Justice Scalia referred to analogous state constitutional provisions, some of which protected the right to bear arms without any reference to the militia at all, in arguing that the Second Amendment merely codified a preexisting right of the people even though it announced a purpose in connection therewith.

Justice Scalia also noted that, much like the First Amendment – which has been applied to modern forms of speech, such as the Internet – and the Fourth Amendment – which has been applied to modern search tools, such as GPS technology – the Second Amendment is not limited to only those arms in existence at the time of the founding. Thus the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment announced a purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.

The Court held, however, that the Second Amendment is not an unlimited right, although it declined to define its outer limits. Justice Scalia wrote: “since this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field.” The majority cited the problem of handgun violence and noted that the “Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns,” but that the “enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table,” including absolute prohibition of handguns in the home.

[dammitman]

i really hate to tell you oldbarnowl, but the fact is that most of all that goes right over the head of 99.9 percent of the US population. those 99.9 percent which includes alot of NRA members and gun owners just dont read all that much and that long of a read they wont do. they will sit on their lazy asses and do nothing to contact whomever they can to try to persuade them to not allow this POS POTUS from appointing another liberal 2nd amendment confused appointee. its just how it is.

[oldbarnowl]

I am always amazed how many hunters, and gunowners, I have asked, don't even join the NRA for a few lousy dollars a year...

i really hate to tell you oldbarnowl, but the fact is that most of all that goes right over the head of 99.9 percent of the US population. those 99.9 percent which includes alot of NRA members and gun owners just dont read all that much and that long of a read they wont do. they will sit on their lazy asses and do nothing to contact whomever they can to try to persuade them to not allow this POS POTUS from appointing another liberal 2nd amendment confused appointee. its just how it is.

[cory]

I am always amazed how many hunters, and gunowners, I have asked, don't even join the NRA for a few lousy dollars a year...

It has nothing to do with a few dollars.

For 1 I will not give my money to a group that is willing to compromise on my rights. I do give my money to a local no compromise group that does great stuff here at home where the fight starts. Bamacarry

2 I'm done "compromising" only to get one step closer to being disarmed. If they want to abolish the 2nd, then let em and we'll go ahead and get this party started while we're (gun owning population) capable and I'm young enough to fight. Nazi germany didn't happen in one day, it was many small intrusions of the gov that resulted in the Nazi Germany history remembers.

[bwaites]

I believe that comparisons to Hitler are overused today, but if you review his methodology, it is very easy to see what is happening in America.

“The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.” Adolf Hitler

Antonio Scalia stood as a bulwark against those changes, and without him, we are in the gravest of dangers. The Supreme Court affects our lives in more ways than the President does. The Roe vs Wade decision has allowed 58,000,000 abortions since 1973. Regardless of anyone's personal belief about abortion, no one can deny how many people that one single decision has affected. Miranda affects millions every day. Brown vs. the Board of Education has affected every school child for 60 years. Dred Scott led to the Civil War.

If the Senate allows confirmation of another Justice who believes that the Constitution is a "living" document and can be interpreted in ways other than original intent, we are as a country, doomed.

Scalia was correct when he said, "That’s the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that. The Constitution is not a living organism, it is a legal document. It says something and doesn’t say other things."

A post I read 4 years ago may be 100% correct. It said, "You aren't voting yourself out of this." The death of Antonin Scalia may very well be the tipping point that makes that true.

I am glad my children are raised, because I believe more and more in Thomas Paine's statement, “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”

[cory]

Well said! If obama is able to appoint holder, all bets are off.

[davidj]

Maybe he will appoint Michelle.....Just kidding. What gets me is the hypocrisy of the left when they call the republicans obstructionists.
This is a good example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkRZVE3aDm8

[bwaites]

What's even scarier is that Hillary has said she would consider appointing Obama if she wins election!

[cory]

What's even scarier is that Hillary has said she would consider appointing Obama if she wins election!

If Hiliary wins she could appoint 2 seats not counting Scalia's seat.

[bow shot]

He will likely not be racially prejudiced like the last pres-o-dint, if/when he makes an appointment. I'll make a couple predictions here:

1) Either he will not leave office, or
2) He will be ushered straight to the throne of the UN (whenever that cesspool has their next coronation) or..
3) God forbid... can you imagine BOTH??

[sneaky one]

Think positive- what you think about, you bring about.

Don't go all negative.

[Rainman]

A defining moment for Paul Ryan for sure, both his speakership and political future. Do the Republican Senators and Congressmen have the collective backbone to stand up to obama and the Dems? We shall soon see. I'm a lifelong NRA member and while the organization is far from perfect they are the best national platform I've found for individuals not in the firearms industry. obama is a nightmare and it could get worse but I'm betting it will get better based on the amount of voter dissatisfaction/disgust of the rank and file represented in the apparent support for Trump and Sanders. Hopefully sanity prevails and we will have a choice in 2016 for a credible presidental candidate. The party conventions could get real interesting and hopefully the FBI spices it up even more.

[dammitman]

they finally made a point of talking about this subject on the debate last night. i really dont think that people understand how big of a deal it really is down the road