[Gilbo_3]

enjoying the 'what ifs' about SCOTUS...but lets be realistic...

theres NO guarantee that any of em live or die, nor any of us beyond the next keystroke...

that said, even with a marginally 'conservative' court [cough, spit], we only got a 5-4 on Heller and mcDonald, two cases directly bearing on a simple phrase "Shall NOT be infringed"...

the court, even when/if it gets a correct 'interpretation' then diminishes the Rights further by watering down the upheld Right with drivel that becomes future weighted opinion...

even further, whats [who] to stop bambam from simply EOing anything, or even doubling the number of justices and appointing them whenever he decides he needs to ???

SCOTUS *should* be an important factor...but its hit or miss how any 'conservative' justice acts once tenuured for life...

again, our issues come back to how our *reps* have acted the last 40+ yrs in allowing socialists to be rubberstamped into SCOTUS while simultaneously cowing to pressure in support of decent jurists...

NOT my fault/problem now...

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

that said, even with a marginally 'conservative' court [cough, spit], we only got a 5-4 on Heller and mcDonald, two cases directly bearing on a simple phrase "Shall NOT be infringed"..

Here's another one (Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency), Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas vote co2 is not a "pollutant," Kennedy votes with the 4 demons that it is:

The Natural Resources Defense Council said in a statement that the ruling "repudiates the Bush administration's do-nothing policy on global warming," undermining the government's refusal to view carbon dioxide as an air pollutant subject to EPA regulation.