During her Senate confirmation hearings, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asked, “Do you believe the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right?”
Judge Jackson’s response is telling: “Senator, the Supreme Court has established that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right.”
She did not say the right to keep and bear arms was enshrined in the Constitution. Nor did she say it’s part of our God-given right to self-defense. Instead, she believes the RKBA was “established” by the Supreme Court. That, friends, is a judicial philosophy taken straight from the pages of Gun Banning 101.
Lee Williams
March 28, 2022
Come on, man. Of course, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is anti-gun
[I also was struck by the odd wording when Chuck Petras @Chuck_Petras tweeted Judge Jackson’s response to me. And, I’m nearly certain, she wasn’t referring to this SCOTUS declaration:
This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.
That said, I’m not sure any Senators are going to expend the political capital to make a big deal out of opposing her nomination. Those in tight elections might well see opponents shriek, “Senator Racist voted against confirming the first black woman to the Supreme Court!”. It is probably better that they save their ammo for legislative votes with less baggage and more immediate and direct consequences.—Joe]
I didn’t remember that last bit “… but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
That is flat out wrong, of course. The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law…” but the Second does not. Instead, it simply says “…shall not be infringed”. By the understanding of anyone capable of parsing plain English, that means “shall not be infringed by anyone“. In particular, it includes “by the states” and indeed the Texas supreme court held so, back several decades before the 14th Amendment.
If your a conservative senator that’s worried about being called a racist? Your mentally compromised already.
SCOTUS made themselves irrelevant by passing on the Texas suit over the last election.
Personally, I think she’s a good fit. As the only thing SCOTUS is good for is what the rest of government is good for. Serve as an excellent case study in what not to do. For future generations, should they survive the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.
I would love to hear someone tell her; I asked for your name, not a run-on sentence.
What I would give to be a senator with terret’s syndrome right now!
Or anytime for that matter.
While Ann Coulter has had her ups and downs over the years, I still giggle over a comment she made.
She once said she wanted to be nominated to SCOTUS, solely for the opportunity to, when being questioned by that fat bloviating slug Ted Kennedy, to tell him, ‘We’ll drive off that bridge when we come to it, Senator.’
Some days you want decorum. And other days, you wish for a good ol’ bar brawl.
I’m glad someone asked the question. I’m not surprised by the answer; Joe is correct, it’s classic weasel-words, and it does not bind her to anything.
Me, I’m just amused that Joe Biden promised to nominate an African-American woman to the Supreme Court… and we get a nominee who refuses to define what a woman is. (For extra brownie points, someone should ask her to define what African-American means. For all we know, she’s neither; I’m not a biologist either.)
It’s the sort of thing you can expect from an affirmative action candidate. Biden seems to specialize in those. For example, his VP was chosen based on two requirements (a) affirmative action, (b) stupider than Biden. That was one heck of a challenge, obviously, but he managed to do it.