Two of Trumps SCOTUS short listers are a yay..

[4excal]

For those that care about this SCOTUS stuff..
it's like a miracle that it was a smooth yay/nay without the Dems bitching and crying..
Hardiman was 95-0 yay and Gorsuch was a voice vote yay.

Several on Trump’s SCOTUS List Have Bipartisan Support

 

[Dr. Evil]

To me, this was one of the most important reasons I was happy Hillary didn't win.

 

[carpediem]

To me, this was one of the most important reasons I was happy Hillary didn't win.

Agreed. She would have damaged this country beyond even the end of her life had she stacked the court with far left progressives. We would certainly have lost the 1st and 2nd amendments. Probably a couple others as well.

 

[livingston]

. For example, the gun rights cases in which Hardiman has participated reflect an originalist approach to the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Although he rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the general constitutionality of the federal law barring felons from possessing firearms, last year he concurred in a pair of challenges to the law by two men who had been convicted of corruption of a minor and carrying a handgun without a license, respectively. Hardiman agreed with the would-be gun owners that, at least as applied to them, the federal law violates the Constitution. He explained that “the threshold question in a Second Amendment challenge is one of scope: whether the Second Amendment protects the person, the weapon, or the activity in the first place. This,” he continued, “requires an inquiry into ‘text and history.’” Based on that inquiry, he concluded that “the most cogent principle that can be drawn from traditional limitations on the right to keep and bear arms is that dangerous persons likely to use firearms for illicit purposes were not understood to be protected by the Second Amendment” – a category into which the individuals in this case, in his view, did not fall. Relying on this principle, Hardiman also joined an unpublished and unsigned opinion rejecting a Second Amendment challenge to the federal and state bars on gun ownership by an inmate released from prison after serving time for armed robbery.

Potential nominee profile: Thomas Hardiman - SCOTUSblog

Hardiman’s opinion in Drake v. Filko is a strong statement of his commitment to a more expansive view of the Second Amendment. The case was a challenge to a New Jersey law regulating the issuance of permits to carry handguns in public. Among other things, the gun owner seeking a permit is required to show that he has a “justifiable need” to carry the gun. The panel ruled in favor of the state, but Hardiman dissented from that ruling. He emphasized that the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago both “indicate that the Second Amendment extends beyond the home,” and that – at least in his view – the law violates the Second Amendment. After considering the case at three different conferences, the Supreme Court declined to review the case on the merits, as it did with several other cases presenting the same question.

 

[livingston]

Another area in which Gorsuch has written persuasively in a manner that closely echoes Scalia relates to how to interpret criminal laws correctly, so as to avoid criminalizing potentially innocent conduct. One of Gorsuch’s most notable opinions in this area also happens to overlap with the hot-button issue of gun ownership — although the case is not about the Second Amendment, and doesn’t involve anything like the typical gun-rights groups.

A federal criminal law prohibits the knowing possession of a gun by a felon. This law has given rise to a debate about how best to read its limitation to “knowing” violations: Does it apply whenever a felon knowingly possesses a gun, or must violators also know that they have been convicted of a felony? This matters, because lots of minor crimes might technically be felonies, and lots of dispositions that seem inconsequential (because they involve no jail time) might technically be felony convictions. And the penalties for violating this law can be very high. In United States v. Games-Perez, in 2012, Gorsuch urged the 10th Circuit to review its rule holding that it is enough to support a conviction that the defendant knew he possessed the gun, whether or not he knew he was a felon. The opinion is an example of Gorsuch’s strong commitment to textualism, and a severe critique of using legislative history — particularly to make criminal what might otherwise be innocent. Accordingly, it is easy to hear clear echoes of Scalia’s views regarding the proper reading of statutes — especially criminal statutes — as well as the importance of focusing on ordinary usage and linguistic rules.

Potential nominee profile: Neil Gorsuch - SCOTUSblog

 

[4excal]

Thank you @livingston that's some good information

 

[Shadow2]

we can get a new judge, we can get several new judges, they still won't rule on 2A, judges like the ability to change thier minds, by keeping decisions vague they can do this.

 

[togmaster]

To me, this was one of the most important reasons I was happy Hillary didn't win.

It is the single most important reason. Without a favorable Supreme Court the 2A would have been in trouble. I right leaning court now will guarantee the 2 A for my lifetime and most of my children's.

 

[islandman]

I am more than a little disappointed that Judge Napolitano didn't make the so called short list. He would be a great addition to the court, someone that would bring back the US Constitution. This goes for all cases, not solely for the Second Amendment. Not surprised though, his views in regards to eminent domain are opposite of the Trumps.

 

[speedkills27]

SCOTUS was the number one reason I voted for Trump and I believe Gorsuch would be a great first addition to the court

 

[Phazer]

Donald Trump picks for Supreme Court rated on ‘Scalia-ness’ factor

By Alex Swoyer - The Washington Times - Thursday, January 26, 2017

If President Trump and conservative activists want to make good on their goal of replacing the late Justice Antonin Scalia with a jurist of the same bent and caliber, a group of lawyers and academics have crunched the numbers and have come up with the answer: Judge William Pryor.

Of the three names reported to be at the top of Mr. Trump’s list, Judge Pryor scored the highest on a test of likely “Scalia-ness,” followed closely by Judge Neil Gorsuch, with Judge Thomas Hardiman trailing behind.

Jeremy Kidd, a law professor at Mercer University who led the study, said they looked at the judges’ fealty to the Constitution’s original meaning, their devotion to Justice Scalia’s writings and their willingness to strike out in writing their own opinions rather than sign on to colleagues’ rulings — a hallmark of Scalia’s tenure on the high court.​

 

[speedkills27]

I think Pryor is too hard right, both CNN and SCOTUSblog see Grosuch as closer to Scalia and Pryor very Alito-esq. Judge Scalia was more of an right leaning libertarian. The democrats will have a very hard time coming up with a reason to not approve Grosuch (not that he needs their help anyway) seeing as that his appointment to the 10th Circus of Appeals was voted in unanimously. Personally I would like to see the list as Grosuch, Hardiman, and Prayor, in that order.

 

[spat]

I think Pryor is too hard right, both CNN and SCOTUSblog see Grosuch as closer to Scalia and Pryor very Alito-esq. Judge Scalia was more of an right leaning libertarian. The democrats will have a very hard time coming up with a reason to not approve Grosuch (not that he needs their help anyway) seeing as that his appointment to the 10th Circus of Appeals was voted in unanimously. Personally I would like to see the list as Grosuch, Hardiman, and Prayor, in that order.

Let's hope trump gets to appoint all 3 in the next couple years...

 

[speedkills27]

Today's the day! Please be Gorsuch, please be Gorsuch, please be any justice who will uphold the Constitution