Comments on: We’re Going Back to the Supreme Court

By: Bitter

Bitter — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 14:00:34 +0000

Because her first term will be one for the history books. There are going to be a number of huge Constitutional questions before the Court this session – First Amendment (on both speech & religion), Second Amendment, and the Eighth Amendment. In fact, given her background as an assistant DA, she might make a good candidate to write for either side of the Eighth Amendment case. For most folks, gun issues are hardly what they want to make a name for themselves on – on either side. Like it not, most people just don’t care that much. She took a lot of heat for whether or not it would even be appropriate for her to hear these challenges, so I tend to doubt that of all of the potential cases to write and opinion for, this will rank highly on her list of preferences. Maybe she’s a Dennis Henigan in disguise and would love to attach her name as boldly as possible to every single gun control question to ever come up before the Court, but I tend to doubt it. There are very few Dennis Henigan-level believers out there, thank goodness.

By: ParatrooperJJ

ParatrooperJJ — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 12:51:23 +0000

Bitter – I don’t see why she would care about making waves? She has reached the pinacle of her career.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 04:53:18 +0000

I thought she made it pretty clear in her opinion that the RKBA was not a fundamental right, which would be a key substantive argument against incorporation, rather than a mere “sure it should be incorporated but we’re the wrong court to do that” technicality. Be that as it may, she replaced David Souter, who effectively opined that the Second Amendment doesn’t mean anything at all, so I don’t see her hurting the overall situation on balance. Just not helping.

That said, I’m cautiously optimistic that at least one of the three Heller nullificationists still on the court will be (wo-)man enough to say “OK, so we don’t agree with how the Heller court ruled on the basic meaning of the Second Amendment, but whatever the hell it means, of course that applies to the states!” Barring that, another 5-4 victory would still be a victory.

By: Bitter

Bitter — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 03:59:47 +0000

That is true, Matthew. But does anyone who actually listened to her dance around all questions about the Second Amendment actually believe her opinion will change? Although I would also add that she doesn’t actually have to come up with an argument. Most likely she will just sign her name to someone else’s opinion. I tend to doubt she’d want to make waves on this issue as a leader since it was such a huge debate in her hearing.

By: jones

jones — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:36:04 +0000

If she votes no, it will make some great tv commercials and probably not hurt us.

By: Matthew Carberry

Matthew Carberry — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:24:25 +0000

She ruled against Incorporation by basically saying it wasn’t her job at the District Court level to do so; it was up to the Supremes.

She doesn’t have that “out” now. Either she recuses or she comes up with an actual -argument- against Incorporation.

By: Bitter

Bitter — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:08:59 +0000

Considering she has already ruled against incorporation, I wouldn’t hold my breath, Shawn.

By: Shawn

Shawn — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:35:02 +0000

Looks like we’ll get to see how biased our new judge really is.

By: jones

jones — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:28:13 +0000

Can anyone explain what the Privleges and immunities aspect means, and reflects?

http://joshblogs.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/question-presented-in-2nd-amendment-case-asks-about-privileges-or-immunities-clause/

By: RAH

RAH — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:50:43 +0000

SCOTUS had a plethora of cases. Maybe they like Alan Gura. He does good research and the incorporation in Cruikshank should be overturned. I hope that he is less timid about advocating that.