final 3 supreme court picts

[rlmmatt]

The nightly news said trump was going to announce his pick from three on monday. Does anyone know anything sportsman related about
Brett kavanaugh?
Amy barret?
Raymond kethledge?

2nd amendment related
Public lands
Hunting related

In advance if this goes south please freeze it or take it down
Thanks

 

[7mm08mo]

Just did a quick Wikipedia search and it said Raymond Kethledge has spoken openly about hunting Michigan wilderness with his son. Only outdoors related thing I could find on any of them.

 

[rlmmatt]

Thanks for responding maybe we can get a little more insight of who might be shaping the new court

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Of the three Kethledge definitely seems to be the best pick. We want a judge who is going to look at the facts and the law and make a judgement based on them alone. Barret and Kavanaugh both seem to have gone rogue in the past, or at least have things in their background that seem to suggest they might be activist judges.

 

[pointingdogsrule]

Of the three Kethledge definitely seems to be the best pick. We want a judge who is going to look at the facts and the law and make a judgement based on them alone. Barret and Kavanaugh both seem to have gone rogue in the past, or at least have things in their background that seem to suggest they might be activist judges.

yep, seems like Kethledge is the most true "constitutionalist"

good luck to all
the dog

 

[rlmmatt]

I'm hoping for another scalia

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I'm hoping for another scalia

I assume you say this because of Heller... but remember Scalia's death was a primary factor in Utah dropping their public land transfer suit;

"I'm a little bit worried about the lawsuit because of the change in the Supreme Court... the timing before was pretty good for a good decision. - Utah State Rep. Mike Noel

I'm not trying to argue Scalia was bad for hunters, just that hunting issues are way more complicated than just guns.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I'm hoping for another scalia

Scalia was a historically important judge, but as all are, he was a man of his time, and his deference to administrative agencies during a monumental surge from law making by elected officials, to law making by un-elected bureaucrats was a huge mistake (ala Chevron). Personally, I want another Gorsuch.

 

[RobG]

Was listening to Mark Levin's show yesterday (gathering intel for our 2nd civil war) and he was big on Amy Barret. The argument was that since any nom will piss off the Dems so you might as well pick the most extreme. So there you go.

Here's Levin on public land... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFjSPkB1yH8

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Was listening to Mark Levin's show yesterday (gathering intel for our 2nd civil war) and he was big on Amy Barret. The argument was that since any nom will piss off the Dems so you might as well pick the most extreme. So there you go.

Here's Levin on public land... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFjSPkB1yH8

What a train wreck... I know as a hunter it always pisses me off when I have to buy my super expensive federal elk tag...

 

[VikingsGuy]

What a train wreck... I know as a hunter it always pisses me off when I have to buy my super expensive federal elk tag...

I don't have a great deal of faith in governments at either level so don't usually pick sides on this topic, but as to your snarky comment, if the states could get away with 30+% income taxes your WY/MT elk tags would likely be free.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I don't have a great deal of faith in governments at either level so don't usually pick sides on this topic, but as to your snarky comment, if the states could get away with 30+% income taxes your WY/MT elk tags would likely be free.

?? I'm sorry but you lost me, I was being snarky about this; "the hunter's the fisherman...most of them are fed up with the federal government too and all the rules and the licensing and the enormous amount of money they have to pay."

Other than duck stamps, what federal licenses do you have to purchase. He clearly doesn't understand the issue but is trying to use it as an argument for transfer. For the life of me I don't understand how anyone who hunts could possibly be pro transfer or even neutral on the issue.

 

[VikingsGuy]

?? I'm sorry but you lost me, I was being snarky about this; "the hunter's the fisherman...most of them are fed up with the federal government too and all the rules and the licensing and the enormous amount of money they have to pay."

Other than duck stamps, what federal licenses do you have to purchase. He clearly doesn't understand the issue but is trying to use it as an argument for transfer. For the life of me I don't understand how anyone who hunts could possibly be pro transfer or even neutral on the issue.

First, my bad, I thought you were "mocking" state fees for elk tags and suggesting it as an example of how states get it wrong in contrast to others as seeing states as the "solution".

That aside, I worry when ever someone says the don't understand how others could possibly disagree or have other priorities. There are reasonable concerns on both sides of these issues and the all or nothing, with us or against us, viewpoints of both sides are an example of how not to run a country.

Part of the problem is that both sides place way too much emphasis on the current circumstance and don't see how a change in circumstances changes their outlook. For example, when Obama overrules his own agency decisions and blocks a major pipeline project the right decried it as ruling by Executive fiat, while the left smugly reminded us all that "elections have consequences". But when Trump reverses the ruling, the sides conveniently swap outrage and arguments - it would be a great joke if it weren't so depressing. Today in 2018, the feds look like the savior for public land hunters, but what about in 20 years when the progressives try to use the large population west/east coast states to pass federal bans or severe limits hunting on all federal lands due to animal rights bias? Probably be nice for such issues to be managed by the states then. There are countless examples of this flip flopping on states vs feds help me now positioning. I would like to think we can do better.

 

[bobbydean]

I am enjoying this discussion. Please do not let it get off topic. (I realize I am one the worst).

Randy is mean on threads on politics.

 

[Sytes]

Found very little though hold onto your seats... Political constituent pandering will soon fabricate more than enough on all of them to bring out the entertainment. Either way, once all the dust settles one will replace Kennedy.

Amy Coney Barrett, for the win. I get the feeling that it may be one of the other two though... Not enough to go by for the conservatives whereas the other two, both Bush appointed, have more conservative resumes. Hope I'm wrong though hell, this is an internet forum musing over our next SCOTUS pick.
Kethledge opinion piece from CNN...
https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/05/opinions/raymond-kethledge-strong-character-erwin/index.html
Kravanaugh opinion piece from The Hill...
http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...rica-will-have-a-bold-brilliant-supreme-court
Barrett opinion piece from Wall Street Journal...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-amy-coney-barretts-cult-1530833211
Some content on second amendment, very little regarding outdoor/environment and next to nothing on public lands, less a blurb or two within the Bush era if one strains hard enough.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

That aside, I worry when ever someone says the don't understand how others could possibly disagree or have other priorities.

Agreed, that was a legitimate question, although I could have phrased it better. To be quite honest unless you are a big landowner/have really deep pockets I don't see how land transfer is a benefit. I understand the idea that there could be unforeseen issues with federal ownership, although I respectfully reject your specific example as with the exception of AK the federal government doesn't get to dictate hunting regulations, states do and you can hunt on most federal lands including 60% of the land managed my the National Park Services. Plus I would argue that because of how slow the federal process is and because we don't have federal ballot initiative legislation, there isn't much chance of dramatic federal legislation one way or another.

We lost spring bear hunting in CO, as well as all trapping due to ballot initiatives and there never coming back, you also can't hunt on State land in Colorado, so forgive me but that's what makes me skeptical of transfer. I don't think either the state or the feds should hold all the cards.

I do respect the point that you are trying to make though.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Agreed, that was a legitimate question, although I could have phrased it better. To be quite honest unless you are a big landowner/have really deep pockets I don't see how land transfer is a benefit. I understand the idea that there could be unforeseen issues with federal ownership, although I respectfully reject your specific example as with the exception of AK the federal government doesn't get to dictate hunting regulations, states do and you can hunt on most federal lands including 60% of the land managed my the National Park Services. Plus I would argue that because of how slow the federal process is and because we don't have federal ballot initiative legislation, there isn't much chance of dramatic federal legislation one way or another.

We lost spring bear hunting in CO, as well as all trapping due to ballot initiatives and there never coming back, you also can't hunt on State land in Colorado, so forgive me but that's what makes me skeptical of transfer. I don't think either the state or the feds should hold all the cards.

I do respect the point that you are trying to make though.

I appreciate your response and I would guess we agree more than we disagree. I would point out though, states regulate hunting on federal land solely because the feds have chosen to allow them too. The court cases that point out the states hold animals in trust and regulate accordingly do so only after first noting the feds have chosen not to regulate directly. This sentence, “it is unlawful to hunt, trap, kill or otherwise intentionally harm any bird or mammal on federal land” added to any congressional bill would undoubtedly trump state hunting regulations.