Supreme Court Nominee NOT symnpathetic towards Second Ammendment supporters!

reply to post by hinky


ALL handguns WERE unlicensed in Washington, DC at that time because they were ILLEGAL under the law at that time - and the Supreme Court later ruled that the ban was UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

It isn't too difficult to see her feelings regarding 2nd Ammendment protections under the law. Couple that with her support for government censorship and her support for granting the Executive Branch unfettered power and we have a recipe for a judicial activist - NOT a competent and objective adjudicator.

Originally posted by Kaploink
More fear mongering. Following existing laws has nothing to do with taking away gun rights. Throwing in a Hitler reference doesn't make the fear mongering any truer.

These type of scare mongering lies are why gun owners have such a bad reputation in this country.

This. Not being allowed to carry an unlicensed gun is a GOOD thing!

reply to post by MrXYZ


Didn't read my post above, did you?

You are taking this whole article out of context and ignoring the crux of the matter. Even though the Constitution guarantess the right of citizens to bear arms she dissented in her memo indicating that she "Had no sympathy". Ergo, she does NOT agree with the Constitutional guarantee of the citizenry's right to keep and bear arms. It is worthy to note that in Washington DC v. Heller, the high court did NOT agree with her and held that citizens DO, in fact have a right to kep in bear arms, striking down the VERY LAW that she claimed to have no sympathy over. Got that? Her personal opinion was over-ruled by the SCOTUS.

Next, we can couple that analysis with her opinions regarding the 1st Ammendment and her belief that government should have the right to censor and control free speech in consideration of "Societal costs".

Pile on top of that her opinion that the Executive Branch should be "Elevated to true executive status", meaning over and above the legislative and judicial branches which usurps the entire notion of separation of powers and balance of power.

Then go ahead and evaluate her statements regarding certiori and habeus corpus, in which she writes that believes that anyone committing or attempting to commit and act of "Terorism" should not be afforded habeus protections, but treated as an enemy combatant even if the allegedly guilty party is arrested nowhere near the battle field.

And what we have hear is a judicial activist who has already seen fit to slaughter the nature and intent of 4 of the first 10 Ammendmends to the Constitution of The United States of America. This is NOT a good track record when one is being nominated to hold a life-long appointment to the highest court in the land whose sole job and responsibility is to interperet and uphold the laws of the land.

You can dissemble all you want about how great it is that someone was prevented from carrying an unlicensed firearm - read as, prevented from exercising their 2nd Ammendment right - but you fail to place in context that the man was arrested with a LEGAL firearm and was prosecuted under an UNCONSTITIONAL law and for all of this she had "no sympathy." To me, this deeply troubling and should immediately preclude her from holding a position on this court.