Scalia question

[Bob Blaylock]

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution…

The President…shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the supreme Court[​

​

I know this sounds strange but I don't see anything that you posted above that gives the Senate the right to deny a confirmation that includes all of the above guidelines. If Obama confers with the Senate and asks for a list of candidates
recommended by them. A nomination from such list could not be denied confirmation. This may require a vote among the senators and the concurrence of 2/3rds of that body, which would include both democrats AND republicans. I think Obama would be happy to nominate a candidate vested by that means.

What could possibly be the meaning of consent, without the right/authority to withhold that consent?

 

[MikeK]

There's no question the 2nd amendment would be in jeopardy. So would the first and a host of others. And yes, the Republicans could stop him but since the GOP leadership are all enablers, they most likely won't.

The Supreme Court cannot, by itself, alter any part of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment. It will take an act of Congress to do that. But the Supreme Court's actions can have a powerful effect where repressive gun laws are concerned.

It is obvious that the intent of the anti-gun faction is to nibble away at our right to be armed. Little by little, with such nonsensical restrictions as lesser magazine capacities, inane "assault weapon" descriptions, etc., they are succeeding. If this process of methodical erosion continues it could end with our being permitted to keep only one single-shot .22 rifle, chambered for short, which we may bear only to a federally approved range in a locked case and an alloted amount of ammunition would be mandated.

As bizarre as that may seem it would conform with our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. And there are politically powerful gun-control advocates who wouldn't hesitate to recommend such a repressive policy.

 

[S.J.]

There's no question the 2nd amendment would be in jeopardy. So would the first and a host of others. And yes, the Republicans could stop him but since the GOP leadership are all enablers, they most likely won't.

The Supreme Court cannot, by itself, alter any part of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment. It will take an act of Congress to do that. But the Supreme Court's actions can have a powerful effect where repressive gun laws are concerned.

It is obvious that the intent of the anti-gun faction is to nibble away at our right to be armed. Little by little, with such nonsensical restrictions as lesser magazine capacities, inane "assault weapon" descriptions, etc., they are succeeding. If this process of methodical erosion continues it could end with our being permitted to keep only one single-shot .22 rifle, chambered for short, which we may bear only to a federally approved range in a locked case and an alloted amount of ammunition would be mandated.

As bizarre as that may seem it would conform with our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. And there are politically powerful gun-control advocates who wouldn't hesitate to recommend such a repressive policy.

He'll issue EOs and an activist liberal SC will uphold them as Constitutional.

 

[MikeK]

There's no question the 2nd amendment would be in jeopardy. So would the first and a host of others. And yes, the Republicans could stop him but since the GOP leadership are all enablers, they most likely won't.

The Supreme Court cannot, by itself, alter any part of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment. It will take an act of Congress to do that. But the Supreme Court's actions can have a powerful effect where repressive gun laws are concerned.

It is obvious that the intent of the anti-gun faction is to nibble away at our right to be armed. Little by little, with such nonsensical restrictions as lesser magazine capacities, inane "assault weapon" descriptions, etc., they are succeeding. If this process of methodical erosion continues it could end with our being permitted to keep only one single-shot .22 rifle, chambered for short, which we may bear only to a federally approved range in a locked case and an alloted amount of ammunition would be mandated.

As bizarre as that may seem it would conform with our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. And there are politically powerful gun-control advocates who wouldn't hesitate to recommend such a repressive policy.

He'll issue EOs and an activist liberal SC will uphold them as Constitutional.

It wouldn't hold.

I'm not sure of the exact number but it takes a major percentage of the Congress to alter the Constitution. An Executive Order won't do it. It would not be legal.