TexasCHLforum.com

OldAg wrote:
Does anyone know for sure that the nuclear option is invoked for SCOTUS appointees? My understanding is that it has been invoked for cabinet positions and all of the federal judge appointments except Supreme Court. SCOTUS still requires 60 votes to end debate and then the Senate can vote to confirm.

Remember in 2013 when Harry Reid used the ‘nuclear option’ to confirm judges?
Harry Reid’s new rule was that no filibusters could be used to stop judges below the Supreme Court. All it took was a simple majority to confirm them.
Harry Reid changed a long-standing tradition in service of Democrat partisanship.
Fast forward to 2017. Republicans will have a simple majority in the Senate. And there are over 100 empty judge spots below the Supreme Court.

Peruta is asking the courts to put that option back on the table in CA and everywhere else it has been denied, and basically make “shall issue” the law of the land.

If the court takes up this case, we’ll find out how its newest member will really rule on 2A issues. Ultimately, this could be the case that fills in some of the many gaps left by the Heller decision. If this passes, the urgency behind the national reciprocity act will ratchet down a bit more, because citizens in anti-gun states will finally be able to exercise their constitutional rights.

The court also did not act on the petition for review in Peruta v. California, the latest gun rights case to come to the court, which apparently will be relisted for a second time.

Thomas said the decision not to hear the case "reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right."

TexasJohnBoy wrote:Keep waiting: http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/05/todays-orders-65/

The court also did not act on the petition for review in Peruta v. California, the latest gun rights case to come to the court, which apparently will be relisted for a second time.

Sorry for old news, that got mixed up in the SCOTUSblog for today with other cases.

ETA: There was a reason it got mixed up with today's news. They're not hearing it.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/26/us ... a-law.html

Thomas said the decision not to hear the case "reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right."

Last time I checked, it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:Keep waiting: http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/05/todays-orders-65/

The court also did not act on the petition for review in Peruta v. California, the latest gun rights case to come to the court, which apparently will be relisted for a second time.

Sorry for old news, that got mixed up in the SCOTUSblog for today with other cases.

ETA: There was a reason it got mixed up with today's news. They're not hearing it.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/26/us ... a-law.html

Thomas said the decision not to hear the case "reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right."

Last time I checked, it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Question: who decides whether or not a case will be heard? Do the justices vote on that decision, or is it made at some administrative level? And if the justices voted on it, did that vote include Gorshuch or not?

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:Keep waiting: http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/05/todays-orders-65/

The court also did not act on the petition for review in Peruta v. California, the latest gun rights case to come to the court, which apparently will be relisted for a second time.

Sorry for old news, that got mixed up in the SCOTUSblog for today with other cases.

ETA: There was a reason it got mixed up with today's news. They're not hearing it.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/26/us ... a-law.html

Thomas said the decision not to hear the case "reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right."

Last time I checked, it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Question: who decides whether or not a case will be heard? Do the justices vote on that decision, or is it made at some administrative level? And if the justices voted on it, did that vote include Gorshuch or not?

Pretty sure justices vote, but I am not sure. I also am not sure if Gorsuch voted since this was brought to the court before he was seated. I'm disappointed no matter what though.

It will come up again, and again, and again until they settle it.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Question: who decides whether or not a case will be heard? Do the justices vote on that decision, or is it made at some administrative level? And if the justices voted on it, did that vote include Gorshuch or not?

For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it.