Democrats Threaten Supreme Court: Reject Second Amendment or Face Court-Packing - Page 3

Democrats Threaten Supreme Court: Reject Second Amendment or Face Court-Packing

This is a discussion on Democrats Threaten Supreme Court: Reject Second Amendment or Face Court-Packing within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Does a 51-49 SCOTUS decision carry more weight than a 5-4 decision? No? Trump doesn't need to drain the swamp, he's part of it. We, ...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 31 to 40 of 40
Like Tree98Likes

Thread: Democrats Threaten Supreme Court: Reject Second Amendment or Face Court-Packing

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Florida Twilight Zone
    Posts
    31,705
    Does a 51-49 SCOTUS decision carry more weight than a 5-4 decision? No?

    Trump doesn't need to drain the swamp, he's part of it. We, The People, need to give DC a giant electoral enema and flush the crap out of the place.
    Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon on the loose.
    Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  2. #32
    VIP Member Array Nmuskier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Upper Michigan
    Posts
    5,056
    Quote Originally Posted by NoDeer View Post
    The left keeps trying to compare Mr. President Trump to Hitler. However, it is now the leftists that are trying to control, intimidate, and demand the SCOTUS bend to their will. Didn't the nazis take over the courts? Sounds like the dems are the Hitler's now.
    Hitler never won a national election either.
    Psalm 144:1

  3. #33
    Member Array M1911A1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Northwest Washington State
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by Nmuskier View Post
    Hitler never won a national election either.
    No. But his party did get elected to enough Reichstag seats to allow them to lead a coalition government.
    Then it became a simple matter to get the National President (Hindenburg) to appoint the leader of the leading party (Hitler) to the Chancellor's (Prime Minister's) seat.
    Hindenburg was old and ready to die, and, by the time that he did, Hitler's party had many more seats in the Reichstag.
    So Hitler got himself appointed to both the Presidency and the Chancellorship at the same time.
    It was all downhill from there.
    Risasi likes this.
    Steve
    Retired Leathersmith and Practical Shooter

    "Qui desiderat pacem, prćparet bellum."

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #34
    VIP Member Array HotBrass45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    2,606
    This is really ironic and hypocritical. One branch of government with an approval rating only slightly higher than a child molester is accusing another branch of government of poor performance
    Mike1956, OldVet and G26Raven like this.
    I was born a gun owner, it wasn't a choice, I didn't become one later in life...I was born this way

  6. #35
    VIP Member Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    The Florida Twilight Zone
    Posts
    31,705
    Congress needs to restructure itself or it may find We, The People, will do so come November.
    G26Raven and catfish54 like this.
    Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon on the loose.
    Lighten up and enjoy life because:
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth

  7. #36
    Distinguished Member Array Novarider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    East TN
    Posts
    1,502
    Quote Originally Posted by Hatchee View Post
    Congress (Legislative Branch). The US Constitution does not stipulate the size of the Supreme Court.

    Congress, which comprises the Legislative Branch, has the authority to decide how many Justices sit on the Supreme Court. Currently Title 28 of the United States Code Section 1 provides for 1 Chief Justice and 8 Associate Justices. Congress has changed the number of justices several times, the last time being in the Judiciary Act of 1869.

    The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the first Supreme Court with six members, a Chief Justice and 5 Associate Justices. Congress adjusted the size of the Court a number of times through the during the 19th-century.
    Why was it resized previously? It's my understanding that SCOTUS only became political in the past couple decades but I could be wrong.

  8. #37
    Member
    Array Hatchee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Boonedocks NC
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by Novarider View Post
    Why was it resized previously? It's my understanding that SCOTUS only became political in the past couple decades but I could be wrong.
    The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the first Supreme Court with six members, a Chief Justice and 5 Associate Justices. Congress adjusted the size of the Court a number of times through the during the 19th-century.

    Judiciary Act of 1789: Court size 6
    Judiciary Act of 1801: Court size, 5
    Repeal Act of 1802: Court size, 6
    Judiciary Act of 1807: Court size, 7
    Judiciary Act of 1837: Court size, 9
    Judiciary Act of 1863: Court size, 10
    Judiciary Act of 1866: Court size, 7
    Judiciary Act of 1867: Court size, 8
    Judiciary Act of 1869: Court size, 9
    After the election of President Ulysses S. Grant, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1869, which set the Court's membership at nine. This number has remained the same ever since.

    In 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted unsuccessfully to expand the membership of the court to gain support on the Court for his New Deal programs. He proposed adding one justice to the Supreme Court for every member over 70.5 years of age, with the potential of adding as many as six additional justices, for a total of 15. Congress refused to pass Roosevelt's legislation; however, the President had an opportunity to nominate eight justices* to vacancies that occurred during his terms of office, which created a court more receptive to
    his ideas.
    .................................................. ............
    SIG P365, Walther PPS 9mm, Ruger LCP ii; Wife's: Sig P238, LCP ii, Remington 11-87 20G

  9. #38
    Member Array Invisibleflash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Born in L.A - NYC is 2nd home - Rustbelt home base
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by Rabbit212 View Post
    Sigh...... why don’t these stories actually provide a link to what they are “reporting”? How difficult is it to provide a link to this amicus brief?? I always walk away from these type of articles feeling like I just read the poster for a bad movie with only certain “positive” words cherry picked out of a review to make it sound better. I feel like I just read some “fake” news from our side but then again everyone has an agenda right.
    Links or not, we all know what the dems have in mind. This would not be a surprise to anyone. Just look at how dem states are run with guns. That is the game plan for all of America, just much worse.
    G26Raven and Rabbit212 like this.

  10. #39
    Distinguished Member Array Rabbit212's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    1,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Invisibleflash View Post
    Links or not, we all know what the dems have in mind. This would not be a surprise to anyone. Just look at how dem states are run with guns. That is the game plan for all of America, just much worse.
    Actually if I go by this article I have no idea what the dems want. To me our news agency's are just as bad as their news agency's Brietbart picked ONE word at the end of what was presented to the the court and in my opinion built an entire story/scenario around it.
    Those are my principles, and if you don't like them.....well, I have others.

  11. #40
    Member Array CrabbyOldGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Tennesse
    Posts
    79
    So, let me get this straight. A bunch of folks from one branch of the government send an intimidating, threatening, an unsolicited message to another branch with the goal of interfering. And, the leader of the third branch is responsible for protecting and enforcing the decisions of the group being threatened.

    What stops the president from marching the marshalls into congress, arresting these traitors and dropping them off at the Supreme Court to have a sentence passed?

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •