Supreme Court Justice Kennedy Retiring in July

SFC B said:

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.

Click to expand...

HONEYBADGER said:

"
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?

Click to expand...

Topgun 30-06 said:

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced Wednesday that he is retiring from the Supreme Court, a move that gives President Trump the chance to replace the court’s pivotal justice and dramatically shift the institution to the right, setting up a bitter partisan showdown on Kennedy’s successor.

Click to expand...

On one side, property owner and Silicon Valley billionaire Vinod Khosla wants Martins Beach, a secluded crescent-shaped stretch of sand and bluffs, to himself. On the other, generations of beachgoers demand continued access to a path long used by the public. The squabble has spurred a spate of lawsuits that now focus on whether Khosla needs state permission to gate off the road — and a string of California courts has said he does.

Unwilling to back down, Khosla is now appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court over his right to shut out the public. His latest argument not only challenges the constitutionality of the Coastal Act — if taken up by the nation's highest court, it would put into question long-established land use procedures and any state's power to regulate development anywhere.

Click to expand...

wllm1313 said:

-Really off topic...but... examples, it's hard to find non-partisan sources these days but I feel like these are reasonably fair.

Click to expand...

Gr8bawana said:

In your own words, what does this have to do with public land hunting issues?
I can read all that crap on any political forum.
Your post is about a purely political issue.

06-23-2018, 08:25 AM #2 Topgun 30-06's Avatar Topgun 30-06 Topgun 30-06 is offline
Senior Member
Join Date
Jun 2009
Location
Allegan, MI
Posts
3,408
Default
I can read all that crap without you posting it every time Zinke takes a breath and it appears that with your closing remarks you have again violated what Randy warned you about! Do you hunt, fish, hike, bike, own any firearms, or are you just a plain old political activist that has nothing else to do in your life? You are now on Ignore and I hope Randy cans your butt for violating his administrative policies as owner of this site that he has already warned you about!

Click to expand...

VikingsGuy said:

This post is a little confusing, but if this is a PM sent to Gr8 by TG, then I have a real problem. Posting a private message on a public thread without sender's permission should earn the poster an automatic lifetime ban. If you disagree - keep it private; if the sender threatens or is "over the line" offensive - then tell the site administrator.

But trying to win a debate by shaming the sender is bush league no matter what your political leanings are.

P.S. BuzzH called it - this was destined to spiral.

Click to expand...

wllm1313 said:

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

Click to expand...

BuzzH said:

Vikingsguy,

The post was not a PM, but one that topgun made on the board. TG has no problem throwing in all his political bullchit on this post...yet also has no problem chastising another HT member doing the same thing. Even going so far as to ask that Mark be banned from the board.

If that's no the height of hypocrisy, I don't know what is, and he should be called out on it.

If this was really about a sportsmens issue in relation to the SC, then I suggest we talk about the merit of the individual, and specific sportsmen's related SC cases as they come up.

The OP didn't do anything of the sort.

Click to expand...

idahohuntr said:

The Herrera case seems as though it could have major hunting/harvest implications. The Supreme Court agreed to take up this case next session. If Herrera prevails, I would expect substantially more off-reservation hunting in Wyoming and Montana by Treaty tribes in places like the Bighorn National forest and other National forests and federal lands.

If Wyoming prevails - it could lead to substantially reduced treaty tribe harvest on federal lands in other states, like Idaho, Washington, Oregon etc.

Click to expand...

BuzzH said:

This thread has nothing to do with a Sportsman's issue...I'd lock it before it heads south.

Click to expand...

wllm1313 said:

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

Click to expand...

idahohuntr said:

The Herrera case seems as though it could have major hunting/harvest implications. The Supreme Court agreed to take up this case next session. If Herrera prevails, I would expect substantially more off-reservation hunting in Wyoming and Montana by Treaty tribes in places like the Bighorn National forest and other National forests and federal lands.

If Wyoming prevails - it could lead to substantially reduced treaty tribe harvest on federal lands in other states, like Idaho, Washington, Oregon etc.

Click to expand...

MTGomer said:

As someone who’s spent more time on a res than most, I have a great deal of respect for treaties made with tribes. Also because of the amount of time I’ve spent there - and lack of wildlife I know exists, I have trouble not being bothered when I see them act in a manner that is damaging to off reservation wildlife AFTER they have entirely wiped out almost all wildlife from within their borders.

There are some guys on the Crow that understand conservation and understand the tremendous potential of their land with managed seasons, but they are drowned out by the subsistence and other crowd.

Personally I’d like to see SCOTUS rule against the tribal hunting, but won’t be surprised one bit if it doesn’t.

Click to expand...

... now defunct Bears Ears ...

Click to expand...

MTGomer said:

As someone who’s spent more time on a res than most, I have a great deal of respect for treaties made with tribes. Also because of the amount of time I’ve spent there - and lack of wildlife I know exists, I have trouble not being bothered when I see them act in a manner that is damaging to off reservation wildlife AFTER they have entirely wiped out almost all wildlife from within their borders.

There are some guys on the Crow that understand conservation and understand the tremendous potential of their land with managed seasons, but they are drowned out by the subsistence and other crowd.

Personally I’d like to see SCOTUS rule against the tribal hunting, but won’t be surprised one bit if it doesn’t.

Click to expand...

idahohuntr said:

Regardless of Trumps pick I think the chances of Wyoming prevailing are slim to none. Numerous lower courts have not interpreted statehood or federal lands to be inconsistent with 'open and unclaimed lands' and the solicitors brief makes a strong case.

Click to expand...