Well, supposedly she is in the same camp as Scalia. Good thing
She is on record as being against stripping non-violent felons of their gun rights.
From a news article:
Still, she has demonstrated her conservative bona fides on Second Amendment gun rights, immigration and abortion.
Last year, she dissented alone when a 7th Circuit panel majority rejected a Second Amendment challenge from a man found guilty of felony mail fraud and prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal and Wisconsin law.
"History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns," she wrote in Kanter v. Barr, applying an originalist approach that looked to the 18th-century intentions. "But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons."
Barrett concluded, "Holding that the ban is constitutional ... does not put the government through its paces, but instead treats the Second Amendment as a second-class right."
So if this case made it's way to the US Supreme Court would she have to recuse herself?
Appeals are typically a challenge to the legal/constitutional grounds of a decision, not evidentiary grounds. So to have the same judge hear an appeal of the same case they once decided on, would defeat the purpose of the appeal (to have different judge/judges weigh the case).Well, I'll leave it to the legal eagles, who I am sure will chime in shortly, but it would make no sense to me that once a judge ruled on a case they could not rule on it again. New evidence, etc. Theoretically, they are not being partisan in their position as judge.
Appeals are typically a challenge to the legal/constitutional grounds of a decision, not evidentiary grounds. So to have the same judge hear an appeal of the same case they once decided on, would defeat the purpose of the appeal (to have different judge/judges weigh the case).
I think restoring the rights of nonviolent offenders would be a huge step forward. I know alot of people who've made bad choices that are actually good people and dont believe that they should be forever stripped of a fundamental right. I have a friend who got into a brawl as a teen and the prosecutor hinged her case on the fact he was wearing steel toe work boots. He can never own a gun. I'm sure there are tons of cases like that, guy yelling at his girlfriend, one heated exchange away from a domestic barring you from ever owning a gun.
When did all this stuff get passed through the legislature anyway, it seems highly unconstitutional on its face.....
Yes. Senate approval of the nomination is a foregone conclusion, which means we would have 5 solid pro-2A votes on the Court. But, we don't know what might develop next year (expansion of the Court's membership or limitation of the Court's jurisdiction). Therefore, the watchword has to be, "Strike while the iron is hot." The critical cases should be in the pipeline already. (Once decided, they are likely to remain binding precedents even if the Court makeup changes.)Everything I've read indicates that she's on our side of the 2nd Amendment interpretation.
Well, let's see...hmmm.if you have such a problem with alcohol that you can't safely operate a vehicle (which is every bit as deadly as a firearm) hmmmm...why should you be allowed to have a firearm?I'm all for that. Never understood how a gross misdemeanor or felony DUI should stop someone being able to own a firearm.
Asking a judge to recuse him or herself is a tall glass to fill That jurist would, in essence, be saying, I am not able to put personal issues aside and deal with this case on its own merits. That's not a person who is well suited to being a judge in the first place. Lacking demonstrably self-dealing or conflict of interest issues, I can't see any judge, at any level, recusing him or herself from a case.So if this case made it's way to the US Supreme Court would she have to recuse herself?