Supreme Court Justice Kennedy Retiring in July

Topgun 30-06 said:
[/B]

FYI there are nine Supreme Court Justices, not seven, although seven constitutes a quorum!
Click to expand...

Correct, my close eye-sight hit the road about 4 years ago, and small screens/fat fingers on a phone don't help.

Never thought it would come to reading glasses...oh well.
 
BuzzH said:
Yep, and why the risk/reward over prosecuting for 3 bull elk isn't worth it.

People have tunnel vision and their prejudice drives poor decision making.

I'm not inclined to risk my wildlife over a flip of the coin. If this doesn't go Wyoming's way, those 3 bull elk wont be a drop in the bucket. Wyoming is either going to look like a hero or goat, and its all going to be decided by 7 people.
Click to expand...

Typical liberal government bureaucrat thinking to order stand down if minorities are involved.
 
dukes_daddy said:
Typical liberal government bureaucrat thinking to order stand down if minorities are involved.
Click to expand...

B.S. - Buzz raises a pretty typical risk/reward question in a high-stake legal case, I don't see how his employer or the race of the defendant played any role in his comments.
 
dukes_daddy said:
Typical liberal government bureaucrat thinking to order stand down if minorities are involved.
Click to expand...

That's funny.

My past experience in dealing with negotiations, litigation, and arbitration lead me to believe that if a reasonable outcome can happen without gambling the farm, its best to consider all options. It also makes more than a whole bunch of sense to realize what the potential down-side is when you consider same.

Once an issue reaches litigation/arbitration, the decision and outcome are completely out of your control. I prefer, and try like hell, to reach settlement longgg before a judge decides who wins and who loses. The middle ground is largely gone when a judge decides.

That comes with experience and common sense, which, from your above post, I contend finds you severely lacking in both categories...

Carry on.
 
While I usually agree with Buzz, I don't here. If the state decides to drop it, that opens the door nearly as much as moving forward with the case. Better to settle it once and for all.
 
vanish said:
While I usually agree with Buzz, I don't here. If the state decides to drop it, that opens the door nearly as much as moving forward with the case. Better to settle it once and for all.
Click to expand...

Actually no. Go back and re read Viking Guys posts. A black and white decision is great until you end up on the wrong side. Unintended consequences can be a bitch.
 
Getting back to the original topic . . . Insiders are now saying it will be Hardiman, but not sure anyone can fully predict Trump’s announcements.
 
I wonder how much expense went into ‘Resist _____’ signs for all the various choices, to be ready to go the moment the pick was made.

Quick look at Ginsburg and her leg that isn’t already in the grave makes me think we’ll revisit this again shortly.
 
Last edited:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-trump-to-announce-supreme-court-nominee
As mentioned, Kavanaugh is the nominee - link added.

Anyone find Kennedy's comment regarding his decision to retire?

Respecting MT, Tester is really on the hot seat for his future with his position over Kavanaugh. If he votes in partisan fashion, as he did over Gorsuch and continues to vote in support of criminal santuary cities, I believe he may lose in the upcoming election and we lose a public land advocate.
Meh, musing over politics... and public land representation. He will lose my vote.
 
Last edited:
VikingsGuy said:
Indian rights/law is not an area I have strong opinions, but you conclusory questions seem a little too black/white. Renegotiations happen every day. For example, the federal gov could begin to outlaw indian gaming - but then trade that off in a negotiation. In a local issue, a few years back, the county just quit maintaining the county road that led to the indian casino - the tribe then negotiated on a number of issues. Another local issue, a state threat to allow non-indian casinos resulted in significant concessions. Contracts and treaties are by their very nature subject to on-going negotiations if circumstances or leverage change.
Click to expand...

Congress has the power to abrograte treaties and treaty rights...leverage is not necessary and there is no need for negotiating with Tribes over their treaties should Congress decide they want to modify or abrograte a treaty right such as hunting.

That said, politically it would not be easy to abrograte a treaty right.

Even with the latest nominee I do not see Wyoming winning this case - but I'm not a lawyer...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ben Lamb
Utah continues push to eliminate public land
5 6 7
Replies
123
Views
16K
BWALKER77
B
joelweb
Utah AG & Suing Feds over Control of Public Lands
Replies
3
Views
887
Big Fin
Big Fin
M
Bros to Zinke and the Pres. don't have to drill
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
Tradewind
Tradewind
Khunter
Trump JR woos Sportsmen, covets Interior Secretary job
2
Replies
32
Views
8K
dannyb278
dannyb278
M
How the fight to save a bird species shows how to bridge the red/blue divide
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
mtmiller
mtmiller

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,048
Messages
1,944,961
Members
34,990
Latest member
hotdeals

Share this page

Back
Top