Supreme Court Justice Kennedy Retiring in July

[BigHornRam]

Yes, move along folks, this triviality isn't important. Save the contretemps for Tanny and Wyo cul de sac importunes.

How about another lame lefty laced rant from Mark 99 to help you move along, Ken?

 

[1_pointer]

Yes, move along folks, this triviality isn't important. Save the contretemps for Tanny and Wyo cul de sac importunes.

HA!!

 

[Ben Lamb]

Yes, move along folks, this triviality isn't important. Save the contretemps for Tanny and Wyo cul de sac importunes.

“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans”

John Steinbeck

 

[Irrelevant]

we will ALL be better off.

Unless you're gay. Or black. Or want to immigrate from a war torn country. Or are poor.

 

[MTGomer]

It seems to me that Kennedy got it right, siding with the constitution and basic human decency over partisan idealism.
Yes it’s okay to believe that gays aren’t sub human AND that others have a right to own a gun.

 

[beginnerhunter]

Is this closed? Also, since this is a forum about sportsmen and public lands, can someone explain prior relevant SCOTUS decisions regarding public lands?

 

[Tradewind]

Is this closed? Also, since this is a forum about sportsmen and public lands, can someone explain prior relevant SCOTUS decisions regarding public lands?

don't get off message here

 

[Tradewind]

Yes, move along folks, this triviality isn't important. Save the contretemps for Tanny and Wyo cul de sac importunes.

thot it was MT cul de sac??

 

[Irrelevant]

If his replacement comes from Utah it sure will.

 

[SFC B]

Unless you're gay. Or black. Or want to immigrate from a war torn country. Or are poor.

Securing the constitution and the fair and appropriate application of it's tenets to our citizenry are THE function of the judiciary. Ginsburg's function has been to simply forward the policy agenda of her ilk.

BTW, attempting to make some inflammatory insinuations against a not even NAMED nominee is pretty weak sauce.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

POTUS might want to have another nominee on deck behind Kennedy vacancy
View attachment 84134
#naptime #sundowning

Gentleman's bet of $1 that the Notorious RBG isn't the next one to retire? My money is on Breyer being as the next one out.

 

[joelhunter]

While I'm interested in the topic (I've got a case waiting for a cert decision after Indiana replies in August), I'd like to inquire: What public land/ hunting issues are headed toward the SCOTUS anytime soon?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Kinda depends on your definition of "anytime soon" as I'm sure you are aware there are set times for arguments and things don't move particularly fast. The most recent decision on a forum relevant topic was probably Washington v. United States.

The following cases are Merits cases for the October Term, but none have been set for argument. There are probably other cases that have implications for public lands, hunting, outdoor recreation, etc. these are just the most obvious ones.

Sturgeon v. Frost, No. 17-949

Issue(s): Whether the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act prohibits the National Park Service from exercising regulatory control over state, native corporation and private land physically located within the boundaries of the national park system in Alaska.

Herrera v. Wyoming, No. 17-532

Issue(s): Whether Wyoming's admission to the Union or the establishment of the Bighorn National Forest abrogated the Crow Tribe of Indians’ 1868 federal treaty right to hunt on the “unoccupied lands of the United States,” thereby permitting the present-day criminal conviction of a Crow member who engaged in subsistence hunting for his family. CVSG: 05/22/2018.

Weyerhaeuser Company v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, No. 17-71

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Endangered Species Act prohibits designation of private land as unoccupied critical habitat that is neither habitat nor essential to species conservation; and (2) whether an agency decision not to exclude an area from critical habitat because of the economic impact of designation is subject to judicial review

for more info go to SCOTUSblog

 

[jryoung]

While I'm interested in the topic (I've got a case waiting for a cert decision after Indiana replies in August), I'd like to inquire: What public land/ hunting issues are headed toward the SCOTUS anytime soon?

Maybe a bit of a chicken and the egg argument, but I don't think it's a stretch to think more cases could show up if individuals thought they might have a more sympathetic court. I'd certainly wonder if the Utah contingent might not feel a bit more emboldened if they assisted in help identify a replacement.

There's certainly more Vinod Khosla's out there.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06...-has-no-right-to-block-public-from-shoreline/

 

[Topgun 30-06]

wllm13---Thanks for your post, as I guess numerous members don't realize the different things that can come before the Court that we should be interested in as hunters and conservationists!

 

[beginnerhunter]

Thanks wllm1313. Good stuff.

I think there is a good chance you see Roberts taking the place of Kennedy as a swing voter. He seems to try to keep the court decisions moderate and avoid implications reaching too far.

 

[Jape]

While this is a big deal from a jurisprudence perspective, Kennedy always sided with the "conservative" justices on gun rights cases (McDonald, Heller, etc...). So, the new pick may not have much of an impact on traditional hunting issues, but likely will over the prototypical "social justice" issues.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

It seems to me that Kennedy got it right, siding with the constitution and basic human decency over partisan idealism.
Yes it’s okay to believe that gays aren’t sub human AND that others have a right to own a gun.

^ Exactly, seems to me that it's completely antithetical to our founding principles to want a justice to be partisan either way (not to mention it goes against the job description). I hope that we get a justice in the same vein as RBG, Scalia, or Kennedy on the bench... you may not agree with their decisions but they all were more concerned with the law than politics. I just hope we don't get another Clarence Thomas.

"So, the new pick may not have much of an impact on traditional hunting issues, but likely will over the prototypical 'social justice' issues." -Respectfully Disagree, I think that yes any Trump appointee will be pro-gun, but give that the Kagan (Obama appointee) went hunting with Scalia numerous times and has hunted deer in Wyoming several times and is part of the NRA definied "anti-gun" group on the bench (she is clearly not anti-gun or sportsman, and has said she supports Heller), I think that the really impacts on hunting will come from partisan rulings on public lands and on environmental issues that lead to habitat degradation. If you look at worst case scenarios with justices I just don't accept the argument that an assault weapon ban is worse for sportsmen than a fishery getting wiped out, or the public getting locked out of huge swaths of lands.

I think as we look at Kennedy's decisions through the lens of hunters and anglers we should be more concerned with his opinions in Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (2009) than District of Columbia v. Heller.

 

[Sytes]

I believe the US Supreme Court has a direct connection with all - inclusive of public land issues, etc... To understand the basic structure of those deciding the highest Judicial rulings on such is paramount to our interests...
An example as discussed within another thread and directly pertinent to this thread - our interests: http://www.hastingslawjournal.org/2018/02/10/are-u-s-public-lands-unconstitutional/

 

[HONEYBADGER]

"
Unless you're gay. Or black. Or want to immigrate from a war torn country. Or are poor."



I always hear this but nobody provides examples....what has Trump done to indicate he harbors bias against African Americans?