Judge Posner is the one who wrote the majority opinion on Moore vs. Madigan in Illinois and wrote:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...concealed_weapons_ban_goes_down_in_court.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/opini...homepage_10-test_featured_pool&iref=obnetwork
So, what would you think of Judge Posner being Obama's SCOTUS pick?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...concealed_weapons_ban_goes_down_in_court.html
A little background: In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” The question before Judge Posner and two other appellate judges—which the Supreme Court has not yet addressed—was whether the Second Amendment also protects a right of self-defense outside the home.
Judge Posner said yes, stressing the part of Heller that says the Second Amendment guarantees people the right to possess and carry weapons “in case of confrontation.” After all, confrontations are not limited to the home. Posner turned to the text of the Second Amendment to buttress this argument, positing that the right to “bear” arms (as opposed to “keep” them) takes on a strange meaning if the amendment’s application is limited to the home.
Posner also addressed Illinois’ argument that keeping loaded weapons out of public spaces is good for public safety and welfare. Reviewing studies about the relationship between allowing versus restricting concealed weapons and firearm violence, Posner said it’s a wash—there’s no clear evidence that fewer concealed guns means fewer shootings, or vice versa. He also noted that “if the mere possibility of allowing guns to be carried in public would increase the crime or death rates sufficed to justify a ban,” Heller would have come out the other way. In other words, perhaps even strong empirical evidence justifying the wisdom of Illinois’ law wouldn’t save it.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/opini...homepage_10-test_featured_pool&iref=obnetwork
Here's who should replace Antonin Scalia
By Michael J. Broyde
Updated 1:46 PM ET, Mon February 22, 2016
I want to suggest a third option: The President should appoint a leading legal mind at the end of his career. In particular, the President should nominate Judge Richard Posner to the Supreme Court. Posner is a leading intellectual light of the past half-century in law. He is the author of more than 40 books -- many of them landmarks and classics in diverse fields.
He has been a judge on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals since 1981. The Journal of Legal Studies found Posner to be the most-cited legal scholar of all time by a considerable margin. He is respected by judges, law professors and lawyers alike. He is the modern "Albert Einstein" of American law, and it has always been an embarrassment to the legal system that he is not a member of the Supreme Court. Imagine the NBA Hall of Fame without Michael Jordan: Richard Posner is the Michael Jordan of Law.
Three additional factors are important in supporting Posner's selection. The judge is not a moderate but an iconoclast, with unique positions that neither political party fully supports: He supports same-sex marriage, is a conservative on economic matters, opposes the war on drugs, minimizes privacy and is famous for undertaking economic analysis of many issues. Everybody agrees with him sometimes and almost no one all the time. Second, Posner is already 77 and is unlikely to serve for many decades given his age. The next President could conceivably name Posner's successor.
So, what would you think of Judge Posner being Obama's SCOTUS pick?