Forum: Author Hangout

Recent appointees.
Clinton appointed Stephen Breyer at age 55.
Obama appointed Sonia Sotomayor at age 55 and Elena Kagan at 50.
Even the old lady Ruth Bader Ginsburg was only 60 when appointed by Clinton.

You missed the point of the OP.

Presidents do not 'appoint' justices to SCOTUS; they only make nominations which the Senate must approve.

The question was when was the last nomination by a Democratic president approved by a Senate with a Republican majority. The answer, apparently, is late in the nineteen century.

The answer, apparently, is late in the nineteen century.

True, but there has only been one nomination by a Democratic President with a Republican majority in the Senate since then.

True, but there has only been one nomination by a Democratic President with a Republican majority in the Senate since then.

Details, you're not supposed to notice that.

I addressed the [OP's] second point

Fair enough. I did not get from the words you quoted.

It's like voting on party lines in Congress.

I beg to disagree. I WISH people in Congress would vote based on their own beliefs. Instead, too many vote the party line. There's always a theoretical question about how a member of Congress SHOULD vote: to represent the views of the people he represents, or vote his/her own conscience. People who vote the party line may not necessarily be doing either. I tend to admire people who feel so strongly about an issue that they are willing to risk almost certain defeat the next election because their vote flies in the face of what their constituents want. I'm talking about a personal belief here - not voting the party line. Sometimes, out leaders need to lead us, or die (politically) trying.

By the same token all states allow handgun ownership but their are procedural differences in how you obtain a carry permit and different rules for carrying handguns after you obtain a permit. Even after you obtain a permit a citizen can't carry handguns on any military base, in a sports stadium, city hall, courthouse or airport terminal.

It's interesting to me that in almost every case the same people that argue that an individual state should have the right to decide whether a same sex couple married in another state is legally married in their state will argue that they should have the right to carry a pistol in their hip pocket in any state they want.

Regarding the prohibitions mentioned in the first paragraph, that's not completely accurate. One state recently permitted gun carry in government buildings (can't remember which). The prohibitions against carry in schools is rapidly weakening also.

Your second paragraph is interesting. I could go full libertarian and claim the state as an entity has no right to tell me whether or not I can carry. Neither New York, nor California, nor Texas for that matter. Licensing carry is nothing more than a revenue grab. It costs me $110 every renewal now (every four years). Why? The government is already taxing me (county level) for the employees that handle the paper work. Just another way to squeeze the tax payer. And if a state or locality (if not preempted by state law) wants to eliminate carry, that is their right under the IX and X Amendment. If they want to handle it the way Michigan does, that's their right. Don't like it and it's important to you? Move.

But, for the sake of argument, let's accept that the state can license. Why should another state honor concealed carry when it violates their own laws? Does that mean that whatever is passed in one state automatically becomes the law in every state? So that when I fly out to California from Michigan, I can transport my weapon per Federal regulations then load up and carry while I'm there? Okay, assume that's legal. What about the residents of the state? Can they now carry? If they can't, doesn't that run afoul of Equal Protection Under The Law in XIV Amendment? Personally, I don't think the Founding Fathers envisioned one state driving the country. Ever.

Same argument regarding gay marriage, til SCOTUS made that argument moot. Or Roe v. Wade for that matter. If both those atrocities get reversed, the power revolves back to the states. Where it belongs. So you could expect to see both gay marriage and abortion legal in some states and not others. Which is as should be. The PEOPLE decide. Not the Feds. So, absent the heinous SCOTUS ruling, should one state's law obligate another state to recognizing said "marriage"? Nope.

I'll go full libertarian again and question whether the state even belongs in regulating marriage. Marriage is a contract. Think not? Don't both parties have to sign a marriage certificate at the time of or shortly after the ceremony? Why is that? Because it's a contract and by signing, you agree to certain obligations, e.g. children, asset obligations, etc. Different states have different views of said obligations under the marriage contract. Which, again, is as should be.

You might argue that terms of contracts should be honored among the states but I think that is for them to decide, certainly NOT the Feds.

By the way, someone brought up the Reciprocity passed the House of Representatives. My answer is --- so? Did it pass the Senate? Did Trump sign it? The fact that it passed the House, along with about $4 will get you a cheap cup of Starbucks.

Not that I disagree with you, but you most definitely dropped a turd in the pool with that post.

Not that I disagree with you, but you most definitely dropped a turd in the pool with that post.

Well, sometimes you just gotta create a stink (pardon the pun).

And you're also correct - non-citizens of the United States do not get protection under the Constitution.

In an article written for the Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University (home of the Scalia School of Law), are these 3 paragraphs:
• • Immigration restrictionists sometimes claim that noncitizens have no rights under the Constitution, and that the US government is therefore free to deal with them in whatever way it wants. At least as a general rule, this claim is simply false.
Noncitizens undeniably have a wide range of rights under the Constitution. Indeed, within the borders of the United States, they have most of the same rights as citizens do, and longstanding Supreme Court precedent bans most state laws discriminating against noncitizens. There is little if any serious controversy among experts over this matter.
Noncitizens undeniably have a wide range of rights under the Constitution.

Indeed, within the borders of the United States, [non-citizens] have most of the same rights as citizens do.

There's a reason those being held at Guantanamo Bay have never been allowed to enter the United States: the Supreme Court would hold its nose and decree they must be set free.

The Constitution and Supreme Court rulings have recognized that illegal aliens are considered persons under the law and are to be treated that way, but they do not have the full constitutional rights of citizens.

There is only right actually enumerated in the constitution that does not apply to non-citizens generally, the right to vote. And one more that applies to legal resident aliens but not illegal aliens, the 2nd amendment right to bear arms.

Two of the major cases supporting 'illegal alien rights' were in 1886 and 1896. Those cases were invalidated by Congress later with additional immigration legislation.

Congress can not invalidate Supreme Court decisions on constitutional maters by ordinary legislation. If Congress wants to invalidate a Supreme Court decision on a matter of constitutional law, they can do so only by means off a constitutional amendment.

There is only right actually enumerated in the constitution that does not apply to non-citizens generally, the right to vote.

And just where in the Constitution is it enumerated that citizens have the right to vote? I haven't been able to find it.

And just where in the Constitution is it enumerated that citizens have the right to vote? I haven't been able to find it.

Apparently you haven't looked very hard. There 4 amendments specifically about voting rights and one more that mentions it, but it's not the whole amendment.

14A section 2

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

15A

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

19A

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

24A

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

26A

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Congress can not invalidate Supreme Court decisions on constitutional maters by ordinary legislation. If Congress wants to invalidate a Supreme Court decision on a matter of constitutional law, they can do so only by means off a constitutional amendment.

That would depend entirely on the nature of the decisions rendered. SCotUS has "sent stuff back" to the legislature before, it's rare, but it happens.

Basically they render X to be null while Y is valid. If Congress wants X, they don't necessarily need to amend the Constitution, they simply address whatever Y was.

So by that reasoning a hunting license issued in my state is legal in any other state. I think not.

Most states have it more tightly regulated than that. But it depends in part on what is being hunted.

Certain animals, you don't even necessarily get a license, but rather "a tag" for use when you find/kill your prey.

That tag may only be valid for a specifically defined region within the state, not the entire state at large.

And the right to purchase pot in Colorado makes it legal to purchase pot in Mississippi?

And the right to purchase pot in Colorado makes it legal to purchase pot in Mississippi?

Colorado licenses the right to sell pot within the borders of Colorado.

Which is different than licensing the right to buy pot.

Besides which, they're probably scrupulous of the whole "once it leaves the state, it becomes federal" so they're going to ensure such things are explicitly stipulated as being within their borders only.

We can argue all we want and assert all we want, but the fact is that whoever is on the Supreme Court at the moment a case comes before it will decide whether or not they will hear a case and, if they do, they alone will decide the outcome. Chances are great that the 9 justices may well disagree among themselves. And constitutional scholars will debate the decisions endlessly.

arrying a firearm is a right guaranteed by the Constitution...

Has that assertion been confirmed by a ruling of the Supreme Court? (There are many opinions about the intended meaning of the second amendment, but not many of them are written SCOTUS opinions.) In the one opinion with which I have a basic, but not extensive, understanding, Justice Scalia wrote that a locality (in this case the District of Columbia) could not simply ban ALL guns - but that there could be some restrictions on ownership. My question has to do with your use of the word "carrying"? Did the court rule you have a constitutional right to carry a gun. I thought I remembered that the ruling said you have an individual right to possess some types of gun in order to protect your own home. In my very non-legal mind, that is not the same thing as "carry."

So what is the record going the other way? Republican President with a Senate controlled by the Democrats? I am too tired to go look it up.

A lot higher, Bush 41, Reagan, Ford, and Nixon all dealt with a Democratic Senate. Even Bush 43 had to deal with a (barely) Democratic Senate for the start, and conclusion of his term of office.

Eisenhower was more mixed, IIRC control bounced around a bit for both houses in the 50's.

Thank you REP and Not_a_ID. Appreciate the info.

And 1 was Borked by that paragon of virtue Sen. Chappa... and his buddy from Scranton.

What is the score for a Senate refusing to fill a SCOTUS vacancy?
One, I believe. Shame on the senators of the majority party at that time.

You believe incorrectly. Merrick Garland was the 11th Supreme Court nomination on which the senate took no action. This too is covered in the Wikipedia article I provided.

Most of the no actions were in the 19th century, but there was one in the 1920s nominated by Harding and one
nomination by Eisenhower in the 1950s that the Senate did not act on.

A few of these were later confirmed after being re-nominated by the next president.

You can wear a short sleeve shirt because you have the right to bare arms.

Correction: You have the right to not shave your arms because you have the right to bear arms.

bear arms.

And the right to arm bears.