The first Hillary appointed SC judge can, when getting the 4 other leftist SC judges agree to overturn Heller,

as in "overturn Heller".

I put it in quotes just for you, Jam.

You don't decide to put your case before the Supreme Court.

You apply for certiorary.

The Supreme Court hears less than one percent of the cases that apply. The Justices decide who to hear and what to rule based on legal debate. When they do so, they owe nothing to the president who nominated them.

Presidents do not appoint Supreme Court Justices.

Semantics, and arguing typed word over intent, when you know what is being discussed is just arguing for the sake of arguing and not being productive towards a conversation.

1) Correct, the POTUS doesn't appoint SC Judges, they nominate.
2) Correct, the POTUS cannot direct the SCOTUS to take a case, but the SCOTUS isn't some impartial body like they are supposed to be.

If you think that there is no back door dealing to get a SC Nominee appointed or that the SCOTUS is 100% impartial and not able to be swayed, then you have a lot more trust in the system than the rest of us.

I think they're a lot more impartial than the rest of you do, that's certain. i also think the fanatics you all appear to fear would never make it onto the court. That's why that particular bit of semantics, the difference between nominating and appointing matters.

The court hears less than one percent of the cases that apply. Not of the cases that are eligible. Not of the cases that the Circuit Courts rule on. Less than one percent of the cases that apply. And that's when there are nine justices. That number drops like a rock when there are eight justices.

So a case that would overturn Heller first has to exist, then it has to be appealed, ruled on, and apply. I don't know what the statistics are for cases in the appellate court, but it's not 100% of anything. Not every case is appealed, not every case would be ruled to overturn Heller. Then, if it applies, it has that less than one percent chance of even being heard.

The process alone takes years, and during those years other elections will happen.

I'm not worried.

Bored, with what is turning into strident, ridiculous reasons to vote for a madman who can't even manage to keep a campaign manager employed when he's paying, at times amused, but not worried.

Semantics matter when you're talking about the Supreme Court and the law. The difference between nominating and appointing is an important one, and the idea that a president can put a case before the Supreme Court deserves to go down in semantic flames. That concept is simply wrong, no matter how you word it.

The danger, therefore, is not on the Supreme Court. The danger is on the federal appellate bench.

And that's why I think semantics matter.

Jammer, we know for a fact that activist liberal judges want to collude with Clinton to overturn Heller. How do we know this?

They are openly stating it...

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2016071 ... urn-heller

And as for trying to keep all gun cases out of the court system for 8-30 years, not only is it impossible to control every potential litigant in a nation of over 300 million, but that's abusive that we should have to avoid using our own court system for that long and just suffer any legal malfeasance by anti civil rights politicians until after that period.

Also, even though it would take a few years to get there, the judges sit for life. The next President will likely shape the court for 20-30 years given the ages of the sitting judges and the ages of their likely replacements.

As to the federal appellate benches, you're sort of correct there too about extra danger. If Hillary is elected, she and Obama and Bubba will have nominated roughly 70% of all federal judges. It will be extremely damaging. Just look at Peruta, it went from an initial 2-1 decision, to flip on a 7-4 against, and then a large unknown vote to deny the whole circuit hearing.

Took me a few days, and I'm not finished, but I did some reading on Peruta.

My first inclination is that Peruta is arguing against law that has been settled since before we had articles of confederation, let alone a constitution. Let alone the second amendment to that constitution.

The first American law that goes against concealed carry is in the seventeenth century, and American courts have been consistent through the centuries. The second amendment has been interpreted time and time again not to include concealed carry.

There is no news here. No new law, no loss of rights. Once again, no, the sky is not falling.

I will continue to read, but it doesn't appear to me that we're in danger of losing anything.

I am aware that sometimes courts look back at pre-US law to form a basis of "common law" or for historical reasons but that is technically bogus except to serve as inspiration, however it should not serve as legal foundation. The Constitution serves as the only BINDING legal baseline.

Also, I find that most people tend to ignore Nunn v Georgia from 1846:

The post-constitutional rulings are a) valid sources of law, and b) extremely consistent throughout the nation in separating the right to bear arms from carrying a concealed weapon. Federal courts first decided that the second amendment does not protect a right to conceal those weapons about thirty years after ratification, and nothing has changed since then.

I am not arguing whether or not the second amendment protects concealing weapons; that is settled law.

I am merely pointing out that Peruta is nothing new, and does not constitute a loss, infringement or restriction of rights that was not in place long, long before you or I were born.

2A guarantees SOME kind of carry.

CA has banned OC, and with their absurdly strict may issue standards they are effectivelying banning CC when in a county of 850,000 people there are only 2 carry permits, which the first Peruta ruling dutifully noted.

Dc vs. Heller (2008) ruled that owning firearms was an individual right, not a state right.

However, in Mcdonald V Chicago (2010), Justice Breyer dissented... stating...



But that had already been decided in Heller...

So... what was this about courts not trying to limit earlier decisions?

Because they appear to be attacking the wrong law. And they're going to have to apply for cert to a court with eight justices. So the lower ruling is going to stand, and become law.

We'd be better off with this case if the senate had approved President Obama's nominee. Then, at least, there would be a fraction of a one percent chance that the supreme court would hear it, instead of the slam dunk it is now.

Garland is not only a anti-2A, but he was a justice in the DC court and he personally tried to overturn Heller before it went above him...

How would he be better than no one at all?

Garland was "moderate" on some non-firearm issues so the libs then called him "conservative" to try and sneak him through.

Clearly the democrats have made killing firearms ownership one of their top priorities. It's not something they are going to budge on.

Because then we would have some chance that Peruta would be heard by the Supreme Court. With a hearing comes the faint chance that one justice would listen to the law. Or be persuaded.

Judges change, judges learn, just like anyone else. We disagree that Judge Garland would automatically vote to overturn Heller. We disagree because I don't think we can know. (That's why Heller scared the hell out of me in the first place.)

Simply being heard would bring it to the attention of citizens who will never hear of the case now.

With eight justices, we have no chance of even being heard.

Are you including other sites? It is interesting following these threads and seeing the same dance going on.

You would be the right of every American to bear arms in the hope that some statist jerk who voted against that would change his mind in less than 8 years? Seriously?

Ginsburg is a big fan of shooting her mouth off.
Show me ONE public statement from Garland that shows he changed his mind.

Go on.

One.

I'm waiting.