|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
How Big a Deal Are Four 9th Circuit Vacancies That Await Trump?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
He pointed to a recent decision to grant en banc review in a Second Amendment case where the panel decision was seen as a defeat for gun control advocates. Hellman said he wonders if the liberal majority on the court would be as likely to take up such a case with four Trump appointees in the mix. While a conservative panel decision might be seen as "distinguishable," he said, an en banc decision could be "harder to get around" when deciding future cases. "It has a stature that a panel decision doesn't." |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(1/7/2017)
|
| Whoa, reintroduce the 'rule of law' to California. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. — Noah Webster in "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution," 1787, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at p. 56 (New York, 1888). |
|
|
