President Trump nominates Amy Coney Barrett as his 3rd SCOTUS judge

Status
Not open for further replies.

Aim1

member
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
2,310
How does she stand on the 2nd Amendment?

Also, strange that the only US Supreme Court Justice who was known by her 3 initials RGB (Ruth Bader Ginsberg) is replaced by another judge who is also known by her 3 initials ACB (Amy Coney Barrett), right?
 
Unfortunately not much is known about her stance on the second amendment so if this were a voting for him my vote would be to lock this thread
 
Well, supposedly she is in the same camp as Scalia. Good thing

She clerked for Scalia many years ago. Some radio station had a program running this afternoon discussing her nomination. They pointed out that, as she went through the vetting process not too long ago for her current appointment on the 7th Circuit (in Chicago), she knows what to expect and will likely be just repeating what she has already said.
Let's wish her well.
 
Last edited:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...ling-personal-story/ar-BB19gSRe?ocid=msedgdhpFrom 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."
 
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?
 
So if this case made it's way to the US Supreme Court would she have to recuse herself?

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.
 
When you combine the following... she’s considered an originalist when it comes to her view of the constitution... she clerked for Scalia and just stated today she identifies with his ideology... she sided with and supported a citizens second amendment rights in a dissenting opinion in the one case she has on record in regards to gun rights.....I’m cautiously optimistic that today was a win for American gun owners.
 
Last edited:
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).
 
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).


True but since she's on a new court it has entirely new judges which definitely alter the outcome, right?
 
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.....
 
A judge who participated in a case in a lower court would recuse herself from an appeal, as she would wish to avoid the appearance of impropriety and would not be a fair and impartial judge in a matter she had heard previously.
 
SharpDog: :cool:. You're a cool guy and, among other people, provide links which might not have been noticed by some of us.

Thanks for the link to the Ammoland article about Judge Barrett's record on Second Amendment issues.
I sent that link to three people.

This will provide more "light at the end of the tunnel", and this so-called "tunnel" for patriotic Americans, over the next seven-eight or more weeks could become very long and the darkest I've ever witnessed (as an adult), in a general sense.
 
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.....


Totally agree that losing your 2nd Amendment rights for life over a misdemeanor, verbal domestic is ridiculous.
 
Everything I've read indicates that she's on our side of the 2nd Amendment interpretation. She seems to believe the Constitution means exactly what it says and doesn't need it's meaning updated.
 
Everything I've read indicates that she's on our side of the 2nd Amendment interpretation.
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.)
 
I'm all for that. Never understood how a gross misdemeanor or felony DUI should stop someone being able to own a firearm.
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?
 
So if this case made it's way to the US Supreme Court would she have to recuse herself?
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top