Graham actually asked some very good questions, so I don’t think you should discount him completely.

But alas, we got Senator Graham brown nosing with his Dem buddies.

We can expect her to not recuse herself when the issue of incorporation of the 2nd Amendment comes before the Supreme Court, and we can expect her to vote against incorporation. When it comes to other cases which will fix the boundaries of the 2nd Amendment, we can expect her to take the most hostile anti-rights position.

No wonder people are buying ammunition like madmen.

I though she was vulnerable on the gun issue and there is a Senatorial majority that supports gund rights. If the NRa pishes this we may actually erail her cinfirmation.

Her testimony has been very damaging in my biased opinion.
Any one has the vote count on a gun bill that may indicate if she gets voted down?

She won’t answer. She says she can’t think of a case where SCOTUS has said that people do have that right. She can’t think of any federal laws on self-defense. He’s asking specifically if she personally believes that as an individual has a right to defend themselves. She said she can’t answer something like that, not because she thinks she’ll hear a case, but it seems to be a complicated question for her. He’s even giving her the out to say there could be a case someday.

Are you KIDDING me?!? She doesn’t think there could be a case someday? She should have read the case involving where the SCOTUS was very explicit that a right to self-defense exists since she apparently referenced it in Maloney: Heller.

From the majority decision:

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s
prefatory clause announces the purpose for which
the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.
The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving
the militia was the only reason Americans valued the
ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more
important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat
that the new Federal Government would destroy the
citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason
that right “unlike some other English rights” was codified
in a written Constitution. JUSTICE BREYER’s assertion
that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary
interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at
36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely
upon the prologue – but that can only show that self-defense
had little to do with the right’s codification; it was
the central component of the right itself.

Heller vs. DC, Page 26

Representative
Nye thought the Fourteenth Amendment unnecessary
because “[a]s citizens of the United States [blacks]
have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms
for self-defense.” Id., at 1073 (1866).

It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War
Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual
right to use arms for self-defense.

Heller vs DC, Page 44

The traditional militia was formed from a pool of
men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful
purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary
war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen
and weapons used in defense of person and home were one
and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614
P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and
Blades of the American Revolution 6-15, 252-254 (1973)).

Heller vs. DC, Page 52

As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a
prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly
chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.
The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the
need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.
Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied
to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from
the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to
‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,”
478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

Heller vs. DC, Page 57

We must also address the District’s requirement (as
applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the
home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This
makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core
lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

Heller vs. DC, Page 58

Need more Judge Sotomayor? I can go on. Or did you just skim the title of the decision and discard it as irrelevant to what you were deciding because precedent was more important? Despite the fact the precedent was sitting right in front of you and you ignored it.

No Federal laws…unbelievable.

This is horrifying to watch. All I can say is she the best of a bunch of bad options. She’s replacing Souter but still. She’s not qualified to sit on that bench for life if she can’t even be bothered to look up a decision that has been thrown at her for two days now and she must know was going to be referenced time and time again.

I’ll bet she’d waffle and pontificate even if we printed “This
makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core
lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.” on a banner in big, bold letters and argue it was an open question.

We better hope Scalia or Kennedy stick around. Another like her and we’re finished.

Sounds like we should take up a collection to send her a copy of Alan Korwin’s “Supreme Court Gun Cases.” I’m sure Alan will be happy to autograph her copy.