Sam Adams
Member
Wouldn't it be better to have a Supreme Court Justice who is considered more anti-gun write a strong 2nd Amendment opinion
She might surprise a lot of people. Here's my reasoning (which isn't original, btw, as I read it elsewhere around the time of the oral argument):
1. She is absolutely, utterly dedicated to preserving the effect of the Roe v. Wade decision. But she's smart enough to know that Roe is based on a foundation made of dry sawdust - Roe, itself, made up law, and was based on a case that made up law. IOW, there's nothing is explicit in the Constitution to protect the "right" to have an abortion.
2. OK, but what does abortion have to do with guns? Here it is: The RKBA is explicitly protected in the Constitution by Amendment 2. Yes, people may disagree, but consider that if the USSC can rule that an explicitly stated right isn't protected, where does that leave Roe and its unstated "right?"
IOW, you might get her on our side of this case because she views rights very, very expansively, despite any personal misgivings that she might (and probably does) have about guns. BTW, such a view isn't inconsistent with the views of the Founders - they only gave the government limited powers, and the power to ban abortion isn't there any more than the right to have an abortion is protected.
Of course, its more likely that because she's just a gun-grabbing, government-loving uber-lib, she'll vote against Heller...but speculating is fun.