Hints of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Stance on Gun Rights Look Promising

Amy Coney Barrett

Amy Coney Barrett, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit judge, speaks during the University of Notre Dame’s Law School commencement ceremony at the university, in South Bend, Ind. (South Bend Tribune via AP, File)

Following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday, President Trump promised a crowd over the weekend that he’d be nominating a woman for the open seat. This morning, the Wall Street Journal reports that Trump will announce his nominee on Friday or Saturday.

Mr. Trump maintained that the replacement of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Friday of metastatic pancreatic cancer at the age of 87, should happen swiftly. “We won the election and elections have consequences,” he said Monday morning on Fox News. “We have plenty of time.”

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump nominee on the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals, is reportedly one of the the President’s two front-runners for replacing Justice Ginsburg. While she’s only been on the 7th Circuit for about three years, she seems to have her head mostly screwed on straight when it comes to the Second Amendment.

As the AP writes . . .

She has long expressed sympathy with a mode of interpreting the Constitution, called originalism, in which justices try to decipher original meanings of texts in assessing if someone’s rights have been violated. Many liberals oppose that strict approach, saying it is too rigid and doesn’t allow the Constitution to change with the times.

Barrett’s fondness for original texts was on display in a 2019 dissent in a gun-rights case in which she argued a person convicted of a nonviolent felony shouldn’t be automatically barred from owning a gun. All but a few pages of her 37-page dissent were devoted to the history of gun rules for convicted criminals in the 18th and 19th centuries.

That dissent was issued in Kanter v. Barr. Barrett dissented from the majority which held that a felony conviction for even a non-violent crime — Medicare fraud, in this case — barred gun ownership.

In the opening paragraph of her dissent (which starts here) she held:

History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons. Nor have the parties introduced any evidence that founding-era legislatures imposed virtue-based restrictions on the right; such restrictions applied to civic rights like voting and jury service, not to individual rights like the right to possess a gun. In 1791—and for well more than a century afterward— legislatures disqualified categories of people from the right to bear arms only when they judged that doing so was necessary to protect the public safety.

I would prefer that Judge Barrett had skipped the whole dangerousness argument. After all, if you can be trusted to walk the streets, you can be trusted with a firearm. Something more along the lines of ‘you have served your time, your civil rights are restored’ might have been better.

Still, in her stance on the gun rights of non-violent felons, she is far better than most other judges when it comes to the the supporting natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right to own and carry the weapon of your choice.

Barrett is only 48 years old and, if appointed and confirmed, could serve on the Court for three decades or more. America’s gun owners and those who support the right to keep and bear arms could do (and have done) a lot worse.

comments

  1. avatar Dude says:

    “Many liberals oppose that strict approach, saying it is too rigid and doesn’t allow the Constitution to change with the times.”

    In other words, they prefer to make it up as they go. What a joke. It isn’t the job of a judge to amend the Constitution.

    1. avatar JimmyCrackCorn says:

      This is the fundamental difference between Constitutional and Unconstitutional. I have argued with my Democrat buddy to no end about this. When I point out that the Constitution has been amended and there is a process is place to change the Constitution he just tells me that it is a “living document” and can be reinterpreted by anyone. I usually respond by asking if his house mortgage is a living document and can be reinterpreted by anyone. He usually shuts up after that, but Democrats truly believe that the Constitution can be changed over time without an Amendment.

      1. avatar Pb_fan59 says:

        I don’t think that the Founding Fathers envisioned the internet when they put quill pen to parchment, but try telling the left that you think the first amendment should be invalidated, ‘cuz, you know, history is so old fashioned.

        1. avatar Montana Actual says:

          They already do that to themselves. They call it hate speech. No such thing. It’s either free speech, or it’s not.

        2. avatar doesky2 says:

          Will the tactics of Google, Fvckbook, Youtube, and corporate cancel culture I think we’re actually loosing our 1stA faster than our 2ndA.

      2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Jimmy,

        I heard this mentioned long ago, and it’s stuck with me ever since. Explains the need for scrutiny of “original intent”.

        ****
        If you read that someone said “I’m going down the street to get some coke”, it will be interpreted differently depending upon both the time period and location of the reader.

        * If spoken by a youngster in modern times, it means he’s going to the corner store to buy a soda.

        * If spoken by an addict at any time within the past few decades, it means he’s going to his dealer to score some cocaine.

        * If spoken by a city dweller in the late 1800s, it means he’s going to purchase a supply of heating coal for his furnace.

        Same words, completely different meanings. What they actually mean, however, depends upon an understanding of the speaker’s time period and context. Original intent. We cannot say that the 1800s city dweller was going to 7-Eleven to get a Fanta simply because that’s what we’d like to believe we’d like to do in 2020.

        1. avatar The SGM says:

          Very simplistic argument and response. Judging the meaning of the words used by the Founders is accomplished by consulting the Full OED (Oxford English Dictionary) which contains the word usage/meaning since its first use. This provides a look into their intended meaning in the Constitution, and other documents.

        2. avatar MrMax says:

          The concept of originalism mean, by default, doing some analysis on what WAS the intent of something written in another time period that is known. Using the word “coke” as a noun the way is has had different meanings only requires the person doing the analysis know the time period and context. We don’t have to guess what the Founding Father’s were thinking when they composed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights – there are copious amounts of their letters, correspondence, publications and such like the Federalist Papers. I also agree with the statement that if you are going to change the meaning of ANY amendment – to “update” it or whatever, that requires the same 2/3 of the states ratifying the changes.

        3. avatar MrMax says:

          Oops, sorry – meant 3/4 of the states to ratify.

        4. avatar Hush says:

          The meaning of some words changes over time as in “coke” illustrated by I Haz A ?
          But the inalienable right to self protection has not changed. Therefore, the 2nd amendment is as relevant today as it was when originally written. Some things, including some words, do not change.

        5. avatar John in AK says:

          Luckily, the Constitution and Bill of Rights contain very little ‘slang’ or colloquialisms; Very few legal documents, in fact, contain such words or phrases, and tend to be known for a tedious precision of word usage that precludes misunderstandings. Funny how that works. ‘Infringed’ does not mean ‘bedecked with fringes,’ it means ‘interfered with.’ ‘The People’ is not a singing group, it is the entirety of the adult population. If it contained the word ‘coke,’ it would mean ‘derivative fuel obtained by the partial combustion of coal or petroleum in a low-atmosphere retort.’ not any of those other things.

          “Bein’ as how we gotta have righteous, OK dudes with heaters out there to keep the place goin’ and on the down low, Folks gonna have they gats, and no dude can tell ’em that they can’t. Word.”

          No, doesn’t have the same ‘ring’ to it as this version:

          “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

          See the difference?

    2. avatar Debbie W. says:

      Gun Control and the criminal misuse of firearms are entirely two different things. The criminal misuse of firearms is self explanatory. Whereas the history of Gun Control is rooted in racism and genocide. That makes all past, present and future Gun Control a racist and nazi based agenda. If you are too stupid to understand what Gun Control is and represents then you are not qualified for dog catcher much less be a USSC Nominee.

    3. avatar Chadwick says:

      Yeah pretty much. You’d think reading words and making rulings on those words would be the norm. After all isn’t that why the supreme court exists? The left sees them as broad sweeping change panels.

  2. avatar Why buy kids? says:

    What is it with judges and purchasing trafficked children?

    Roberts purchased trafficked children as well.

    1. avatar Mike V says:

      I’m continually amazed by the weirdos, wingnuts, and wackos you find in life.

      But you can do better than that right, you haven’t even interested me enough to bother googling your accusation.

      1. avatar John Bryan says:

        Judge Barrett and her husband adopted two children from Haiti. Apparently, to the Left, rescuing two innocent children from the hellhole that Haiti has become is the moral equivalency of buying pre-teen Albanian “brides” – I’m sure “why buy kids” would rather the Judge’s adopted children had been aborted.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Your description is not the same as “buying trafficked children.” Were the Barrett’s children kidnapped from their parents, smuggled overseas and sold? Or abandoned, rescued, and offered better lives?

        2. avatar Bohica says:

          30 or so years ago, Guatemala banned the adoption of Guatemalan children by gringos. Why? According to gossip then, those children were actually being adopted to use as organ donors! (I have no idea if the ban is still in effect.)

    2. avatar Shire-man says:

      RBG said laws against the trafficking of children violated privacy rights so they’re all in good company.

    3. avatar LampOfDiogenes says:

      A woman and her husband choose to adopt two orphans from an impoverished life (after having children of their own)), and this is your take???

      Just when I think Leftists can’t become more vile, someone like you comes along and says, “Hold my beer!”

      May God have mercy on your alleged “soul”, you vile piece of excrement. I hope you die slowly, in intense pain.

    4. avatar Michael Houst says:

      And what does human trafficking have to do with the question of guns and the right to self defense?

  3. avatar MrMax says:

    Having a 2A friendly Supreme Court justice nomination and confirmed is the best outcome we could get for upholding this Constitutional right. No matter who is elected or re-elected, at least the court could be in majority to strike down unconstitutional infringements.

    1. avatar Optimistic Engineer says:

      Agreed. With 2A, you keep the other rights.

      1. avatar Dave says:

        Not true. Have we gotten any of our rights back since the 9/11 hysteria?

        1. avatar SAFEupstateFML says:

          Assault weapon ban sunset otherwise nope.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      MrMax,

      Having a 2A friendly Supreme Court justice nomination and confirmed

      It is anyone’s guess whether or not the United States Senate will even debate a United States Supreme Court nomination, much less vote on said nominee. And even if the U.S. Senate votes on the nominee, who knows whether or not they will have enough votes to confirm the nominee even if many people find the nominee to be neutral/favorable.

      It comes as no surprise that U.S. Senators Murkowski and Collins have already stated that they will not vote on any nominee. And we can count on U.S. Senator Mitt Romney to vote against anything that Trump proffers out of spite for Trump.

      That means the odds of the U.S. Senate confirming Ginsburg’s replacement are astonishingly low. I sincerely hope that I am totally wrong. I doubt that I am.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        I think if it came down to that with Romney, then Collins would take one for the team. If Romney holds out, he might not make it to a second term. He isn’t invincible, and he represents a strong conservative area, unlike Collins. If he doesn’t vote yes, then he’s admitting that his sole purpose is to be a thorn in Trump’s side instead of representing his constituents.

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          Romney has already stated he’s on board with a conservative….and he should be…..

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        What’s reported on the news is that Murkowski and Collins have stated they do not think a vote should be taken before the election. That is far different than saying they will vote against such a nominee, and as we have seen with another party in the past few years, they may be telling McConnell the exact opposite in private.

        1. avatar hawkeye says:

          Yes, plus remember that most of the folks writing/reporting the “news” have an ax to grind, that ain’t our ax. Take what they say with a grain of salt. Man, I oughta be in the salt business…

  4. avatar Blkojo says:

    Thomas Hardiman is the choice for the Second. Politics, political correctness though…….

  5. avatar Geoff "The witch finally met her bucket of water" PR says:

    “Still, in her stance on the gun rights of non-violent felons, she is far better than most other judges when it comes to the the supporting natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right to own and carry the weapon of your choice.”

    That is important, since the next line of attack on the 2A will be to elevate misdemeanor convictions to felony status, denying the convicted their gun rights by declaring them prohibited persons.

    If we win big on gun rights with the new court, the battle won’t be over, not by a long shot…

  6. avatar John Bryan says:

    Judge Barbara Lagoa appears to be the other front runner – don’t see much online about her 2A bona fides but she was on the right side of the Elian Gonzalez disaster and Scott Israel suspension. Plus being the daughter of Cuban immigrants most likely gives her a better perspective than most well-off Americans on the results of Communist tyranny. Hopefully the Terrible Trio in the Senate doesn’t lead some sort of revolt and throw a wrench into a quick confirmation of whomever the President appoints. How anyone in the respective states of Alaska, Maine and Utah who truly believes in upholding the Constitution can keep voting for Murkowski, Collins and Romney is mind-boggling. Once again evidence of the bone-headedness of turn of the last century “Progressives” – the 17th Amendment is one of the worst examples of their legacy along with the legitimizing of eugenics…

    1. avatar Kathleen says:

      Please check out what Atty Robert Barnes has to say about what he sees as the top three Women being considered for the SCOTUS slot. He Strongly favors Lagoa and gives in depth factors for his opinion. Can Find a conversation between him and vivafrei (a canadian atty).

    2. avatar john hussey says:

      John Bryan, Why do I vote for Collins? She is the lesser of all evils. Sarah Gideon is a gun grabber. Collins to date has sided (mostly as I recall) with gun owners. I remain impressed with her vote on Kavanaugh. She refused to sway after the circus paraded Ford and her BS story that no one would / could confirm.

    3. avatar Joe thompson says:

      Alaska is plagued by the same thing many red states with big blue cities are. The city has a lot of sway. I don’t know a single person that can stomach Murky. They all live in anchorage.

      Same problem Oregon has, Washington has, and Montana has.

  7. avatar Geoff "The witch finally met her bucket of water" PR says:

    An additional note – I think Trump pushing the confirmation now will pay off for him on election day. I remember all too well how incensed I was by how they treated Kavanaugh in those Senate hearings, and I would have crawled through broken glass to get to the polls had there been an election then…

    1. avatar napresto says:

      Agree! All these too-clever-by-half schemes to wait until after the election, thereby magically driving voter turnout are misguided at best, dangerous at worst. Trump voters will turn out for a VICTIRY, and the left will be demoralized by the same. “Maybe we should think about winning later,” is not a plan I am on board with.

      1. avatar My2cents says:

        You do realize that the democrats are also going to turn out in force as well. This election will be hotly contested and a win by President Trump is anything but guaranteed. I know that I will get roasted by all of the virtue signaling trolls out there for making this statement.

        1. avatar Paul says:

          That is something that bothers me. The progressive/left already is out in force, in liberal cities. They are rioting already. I presume that many of those rioters are registered voters.

          Our response to the rioters seems to be underwhelming.

          We will see what we will see, I suppose.

        2. avatar Model 31 says:

          Well they haven’t been turning out at the Biden rallies.

        3. avatar LampOfDiogenes says:

          You are correct, no matter WHAT happens with this SCOTUS nomination, this election is going to be a knife fight. I personally think Trump has an edge, but it certainly isn’t outside the “margin of fraud” – and we KNOW the Dims intend this to be anything BUT a “free and fair” election.

          Hard to say how this will play on electoral politics. I have gamed the scenarios on my head since I heard the word of RBGs passing, and the only conclusion I have come to is “It depends”.

          But if Trump DOESN’T try, and loses (fairly or otherwise), the opportunity is gone . . . probably forever.

          Make the damn appointment, put it to a vote, and let history determine the outcome. I could happily live with Barrett, Lagoa or Rao – any of them are FAR better than those incompetent hags, Kagan and Sotomayor.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          More Trump enthusiasts show up at Biden events than Biden advocates. One of the primaries, I recall, Trump got more votes while unopposed than all Dem candidates combined. Turn out to vote for Biden? I don’t think so, this is going to rival the exceptional support McGovern received. If you watch what the Dems are doing,they *ALL* understand how bad this will be, and are attempting to form excuses.

          And, what should Trump do about the SC vacancy? The same as he always does, he will do what he feels is right, without considering the politics.

        5. avatar napresto says:

          @My2Cents… yes, I realize that. This is why nominating and confirming a SCOTUS judge now is critical. Waiting is a huge and foolish gamble because you are correct: Trump might not win. If he doesn’t win, this judge goes to Kamala Harris, AOC, and all the other crazies… or Joe Biden if you believe he’s still capable of picking a name out of a hat.

          I’ll add this: the fact that a SCOTUS pick is so, so, so very critical is really a damning statement about the power and reach of the federal government in modern times. This is a knife fight specifically because government has become so all-reaching that it isn’t just WORTH fighting over, it is actually NECESSARY to fight over it lest the “other side” (TM) take control and use it for whatever horrible nonsense they feel like.

          Ugh.

        6. avatar napresto says:

          Oh, and also, when I said “VICTIRY” (yeah, yeah typo… I’ll own it) I meant the victory of getting another judge through before the election, not victory in the election itself (but I can see how that might not be clear in what I wrote). This election is not a done deal at all, but getting another judge through will absolutely hearten the right, drive turnout for Trump, and demoralize the left.

        7. avatar Geoff "The witch finally met her bucket of water" PR says:

          Having a seated justice will come in very handy once the ballot-count cases hit the high court.

          Because they will hit the court once they realize how far behind they on election night…

      2. avatar Nero "...diction, not grammar..." Wolfe says:

        “’Maybe we should think about winning later,’ is not a plan I am on board with.”

        Nice turn of phrase there.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      dems are between a rock and a hard place…time to seize this opportunity….

  8. avatar former water walker says:

    Why do leftard judges never turn right?!? Does power corrupt conservative’s??? Not terribly “HAPPY” with Kavanagh or Gorsuch. Or Roberts😕 They made RBG out to be a saint when she was a daughter of satan. We don’t know what power will do to THIS gal…

    1. avatar Dude says:

      Conservatives don’t like being portrayed as the villain in the media, so they go out of their way to prove that they aren’t “far” right. Left wing Justices don’t have to worry about that since they’re automatically portrayed as a hero by default.

      1. avatar c says:

        What are you smoking? Communists are heroes to the ill informed. Go move to Russia if you want socialism. You want like it but I bet you tell yourself you love it and spend the rest of your life in misery.

  9. avatar Elmer Fudd says:

    Unlike Keegan and Sotomayor, Barrett actually looks like a woman.

    Judge Barrett’s writings suggest that she is not an absolutist on gun rights because she believes that violent felons should not be allowed to have guns. However; she is infinitely superior to any Biden appointee who would support disarming all Americans.

    1. avatar JP Ruiz says:

      Violent Felons that are CONVICTED of Committing heinous, violent, and felonious crimes shouldn’t be out on the streets.

      Non-Violent Criminals should have FULL RESTORATION of Rights after serving their time. That damned simple.

      1. avatar rt66paul says:

        A felony means a year in jail, not a suspended sentence. Judges and DAs are making plea deals to felonies with little or no jail time.
        If the offense isn’t bad enough to put the perp in jail for over a year, it should NOT be a felony.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          “If the offense isn’t bad enough to put the perp in jail for over a year, it should NOT be a felony”

          No, if the judge and DA don’t have the [email protected] to commit a violent scvmbag to a lengthy prison sentence, they shouldn’t hold office.

      2. avatar Ralph says:

        “Non-Violent Criminals should have FULL RESTORATION of Rights after serving their time.”

        Yeah, and fvck their victims. Who cares about them? Nobody. Certainly not you.

        I’m in favor of restoring a non-violent criminal’s rights after they do their time, successfully complete any probationary period, AND MAKE FULL RESTITUTION TO THEIR VICTIMS. Or isn’t that pro-gun enough for you?

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Ralph,

          I support the restitution concept in general.

          Please be aware that restitution could be impossible for all intents-and-purposes in many cases. What is righteous when that happens? I like to think along the same lines as bankruptcy. The entire point of bankruptcy is to declare that the bankrupt person is utterly and totally incapable of ever paying back their debts — and therefore holding them to their debts means effectively ending their life. Since we hold human life above property, the righteous result in bankruptcy is to release the bankrupt person from their debts after a painful process (which is necessary to disincentivize being irresponsible). Similar to bankruptcy, restitution can be impossible. Why not treat restitution the same as bankruptcy with appropriate disincentives?

        2. avatar Ralph says:

          “restitution could be impossible for all intents-and-purposes in many cases”

          @uncommon_sense, that’s true — so what? If the victims can’t be restored to their previous positions, why should the [email protected] who put them there?

  10. avatar Wyatt says:

    >After all, if you can be trusted to walk the streets, you can be trusted with a firearm.

    Could David Ware be trusted? Do you think Craig Johnson and Aurash Zarkeshan buy this thinking?

    Libertarian idealism doesn’t match up to reality.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Obviously that drug-addled sack of crap couldn’t be trusted to walk the streets — but there’s no way to know it until they show it. Unless you’re saying he was let out for a prior offense when he shouldn’t have been, your assertion doesn’t hold up.

  11. avatar JP Ruiz says:

    What’s sadisticaly entertaining about all of this over the death of Ginsburg, and the SCOTUS Vacancy is the Democrats resurrecting their Century-Old COURT PACKING Agenda.

    Their Marxist-Socialist Autocrat mask is out in the open now.

    1. avatar Paul says:

      Agreed. But at the same time, you highlight the negligence on the part of the R party. Sometime during the past century, when they held the power to do so, they could have written an amendment setting the number of SC justices to 7, 9, 11, 13, or 15 – and then stacked the court in our favor. That they haven’t done so, in the face of the left’s threat, amounts to dereliction of duty.

      That is nothing new of course. Congress has failed to address immigration an a meaningful way ever since Operation Wetback in the 1950’s. Congress will always fail to address it’s obligations, until we demand that they do so.

      1. avatar JP Ruiz says:

        I fully understand what you’re saying, and you’re hinting at the GOP Controlled Federal Government during the Reconstruction Years.

        Ironically, the 14th Amendment was really written to reduce the Power of the Federal Courts by Overturning Dred Scott.

        The 14th Amendment CODIFIES that the most Powerful Branch of the Government is the Federal Legislature and the Power it derives via the State Legislatures whom structure the Federal Legislature via Congressional Districting and the Senators.

        Fun-Fact. The 14th Amendment reaffirms Federalism, not creating unlimited Federal Government Bureaucratic Power by making the US a Unitary State.

      2. avatar MarkPA says:

        I think you make a good point about fixing the number of justices on SCOTUS. This “packing the court” thing has come up for the second time (at lest) and it’s dangerous. I don’t want ANY party, whether it be Blue, Red, Yellow or Green to play this game.

        It would be BAD for the nation to tell the GOP to pack the court with 15 – 23 young conservatives the next time they get a chance. If we are willing to play this game the Democrats will have zero compunctions about doing it the next time the opportunity falls with them.

        SCOTUS isn’t really a “voting” institution. A tribunal doesn’t gather together as “community” to exercise a democratic prerogative. Yes, the justices vote. But more importantly, they EXPLAIN their votes in a majority opinion, and in decents and concurring opinions. These written documents are what hold our system of finding constitutionality together. It is through this written opinion/decent/concurring mechanism that we tie the justices down to the system called precedent. It forces a justices to explain how his vote conforms to precedent; that it’s not merely his whim of expediency.

        If the justices just voted and recorded nothing other than their decision then the system would be nothing more than a filling the seats with party hacks. There would be no integrity in the process whatsoever.

        The thin thread that keeps us from making the SCOTUS another political institution is the fact that the justices force one-another to explain their decisions. They argue in private and write their opinions for public criticism. This is key.

        Three, five, seven or nine people can argue thoroughly and effectively and get through a reasonable number of cases each year. If there were 11, 13, 15 the process would grind to a halt. Too many opinions to be articulated and debated. Either the thoroughness of the debates would suffer or the number of cases decided would be reduced.

        Communications experts ought to be able to tell us what the optimal number of minds engaged in a deliberative body ought to be. I suspect that it’s around 9. Maybe it’s 7 or 11. We ought to discover what that number is and fix it.

        Only Congress and the states can do that via an amendment. Only that measure would take the tactic of packing the court off-the-table permanently.

        1. avatar LampOfDiogenes says:

          Sorry, Chief, but changing the number of Justices on SCOTUS does NOT require an amendment. The Constitution is silent as to the number of Justices, but vests in Congress the power to determine the scope and jurisdiction (and impliedly the number) of SCOTUS.

          An Amendment would only be required to FIX a set number of Justices.

          Fun fact: SCOTUS is the ONLY federal court mandated by the Constitution – the federal courts (District and Circuit) are IMPLIED, but not required, by the Constitution. The current federal court structure, other than the actual EXISTENCE of SCOTUS, is entirely a creature of the Legislature. Not saying it’s bad or good, just saying.

        2. avatar UpInArms says:

          Amendments to set the number of justices have been introduced into Congress, one by Rep. Mark Greene and one by Sen. Marco Rubio. They haven’t gotten any traction, but I don’t think they are dead, either. I expect that once we are past the election and the Republicans hold the executive and both houses of Congress, they will likely gain a new life.

      3. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Paul, you make a good point! After Trump’s landslide he should suggest an Amendment setting the SCOTUS number of Justices at 9 or any number preferred by Democrats which is larger than 9. I see no downside.

        And Lamp, an Amendment is needed to STOP threats to pack the court, because then it WOULD require an Amendment.

        1. avatar doesky2 says:

          A better suggestion for a law change would be to…..
          1) Put term limits on new justices
          2) Be able to overturn SCOTUS rulings by 2/3rds of states.
          ===> This is the one way to start ramping down the power of SCOTUS

  12. avatar Robert A says:

    Does it really matter? Almost every Republican nominee ends up being RINO Squish once they get to the Court. SCOTUS is not going to do sh!t for 2A rights. Taking it in the chin from MDA and SORS/Bloomberg locally then hoping and praying years and years down the line SCOTUS will rule on some law is a ridiculous and moronic strategy.

    Whoever Trump gets on the court will turn into another Roberts/Gorsuch. It is pointless.

    Fight at the grassroots level, take on MDA, take on Beto, take on anti gun pols at the local level. SCOTUS is a pipe dream.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      And buy more ammo.

  13. avatar Do u want Sleepy Alzheimer's Patient Joe Biden carrying around the nuclear football in his jammies drooling while sucking on his thumb? says:

    We should listen to what the Potential Communist Potus Harryass is saying about packing the Supreme Court with another 3 or 4 Communist Justices to end rights in America! We need to send out the MSG to the Base & others….

    Getting another Justice on the Court ASAP will take the wind out of the sails of leftist to elect someone who is mentally incapable of carrying around the nuclear football.

  14. avatar Ralph says:

    Lagoa is a safer pick.

    Her family fled Cuba after Castro. Socialism, Communism and all the other isms lovingly embraced by the lunatic Democrats will be anathema to her, as they are to almost every Cuban-American (and Venezuelan-Americans too).

    She doesn’t have an extensive abortion record, which will make it more difficult for the Dems to attack her.

    She’s Hispanic. Attacking her will alienate some Hispanics and deprive the Dims of many votes that they will need. The same applies to that POS RINO scvmbag Mitt Romney, who has to court the Hispanic voters who constitute 27.3% of the state’s population.

    Finally, if Trump nominates Barbara Lagoa, we may actually get our very first wise Latina on the high court. We could use one.

    Because the Dems will see many negatives in attacking Lagoa, they won’t vote at all. They will do everything they can to avoid it, including shutting down the government. It also gives them an excuse to order Hidin’ Biden to stay home and not debate Trump, which would expose Basement Joe’s dementia for all to see.

    1. avatar Robert A says:

      “Because the Dems will see many negatives in attacking Lagoa”

      Like they didn’t attack Clarence Thomas because he was Black? Like how they don’t call Black “Uncle TOms” for not voting with Dems?

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Thomas was then. This is now. Let the Dems go after a Hispanic woman. I’ll watch them get slaughtered by Hispanics in Florida and Texas.

    2. avatar Geoff "The witch finally met her bucket of water" PR says:

      “She doesn’t have an extensive abortion record, which will make it more difficult for the Dems to attack her.”

      That’s an excellent point as usual, Ralph.

      How is she on the 2A?

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Nobody knows how she stands on 2A. But the fact is that aside from a single dissent, nobody knows how Coney Barret stands on 2A either.

      2. avatar Ralph says:

        Also, the last time Coney Barrett was nominated, she was barely confirmed. Lagoa received 85 votes. Even a braindead Democrat (is there any other kind?) would be hard-pressed to explain why Lagoa was great last time and baaaaaad this time.

    3. avatar doesky2 says:

      The DNC and MoFoMedia (BIRM) will slander any person nominated equally.

      Go big. Go Barrett.

    4. avatar TFred says:

      I’m not necessarily opposed to using a Lagoa nomination to firm up Florida and the Cuban-American vote in general, but I think she’s too new. Not nearly enough ink on paper to instill the confidence you need to make a lifetime appointment to SCOTUS. We’ve been bit by that bug way too many times in the past.

      She’ll be good to watch though, maybe in 4 years, after she’s got some good solid conservicreds under her belt.

  15. avatar 24and7 says:

    get ready for a token pick

  16. avatar enuf says:

    Barrett has been on a lot of people’s lists for a while but her confirmation was back in 2017, so not all the same Senators as there are now and the vetting would need to be refreshed.

    Joan Larsen is also on Trump’s list. Similar situation to Barrett.

    Barbara Lagoa was confirmed less than a year ago. So that was by the same Senate as we have today and vetting is about as recent as it gets. An even bigger plus politically is her nomination hits the Cuban Refugee/Anti-Casto big fat emotional trigger button in Florida, as her parents were Cuban refugees.

    Confirmation for any of them is on a slim thread. At this point the Republicans cannot be certain of a majority before the election. There are at least four Republican Senators who have either said they will not support any confirmation at this time or they have conditions.

    The game they played to deny Obama’s last nomination ten months before a new President would take office is now coming back to haunt them.

    We’ll see what comes of it.

    1. avatar 24and7 says:

      you are right…the should’ve took in merrick garland to a hearing…then voted no and completely humiliated him in front of the world..

      1. avatar enuf says:

        They should have followed the Constitution then, now and always.

        The rest is all noise.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          Should have? They did. They are now. One of the few times when we can actually say that about the government.

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      The key might be to make it as difficult as possible for the Democrats to oppose the nominee. Not that they won’t try to oppose the nominee, but it will cost them.

      That will make it easier for the Republicans to close ranks and say that they voted in favor of confirmation because the Democrat’s opposition was too weak to be persuasive.

      Female: check
      Minority: check
      Recently evaluated for a Federal judgeship: check
      Record on Abortion absent: check

      The Republicans could ask: Whom would the Democrats have wished us to confirm? They are merely being political. President Trump has presented a qualified nominee; now, it’s our duty to confirm or reject. That’s the system.’

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Game? Osama taught us that elections have consequences, then he went out and very deliberately handed the Senate to the GOP. The only “game” is that his party no longer controlled the Senate due to the assinine care act. And they still don’t.

    4. avatar Mike V says:

      Comes back to haunt them???

      Worst case scenario they preserved a conservative seat for Gorsuch and a liberal seat for whoever they pick in the unlikely event that they do the picking.

      A draw at worst and maybe a home run at best.

  17. avatar Elmer Fudd says:

    Unlike Satomayor and Kegan, Barbara Lagoa looks like a woman.

    1. avatar John Bryan says:

      Quite frankly I don’t care if she looks like the love-child of Anne Ramsey and Jo-Jo the Dog Faced Boy as long as she protects and defends the Constitution of the United States!

      A return to DC being Hollywood for ugly people is fine by me – all these slick, sleek, blow-dried empty suits really hasn’t improved things, now has it? As the Bard said “Let me have men about me that are fat; Sleek-headed men and such as sleep o’nights: Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous”.

  18. avatar Steve says:

    Thinking ACB’s (or any SCOTUS nominee) 2A bonifides from ONE CASE is ridiculous. Unless they have vocally and faithfully protected the 2A throughout their careers, they are potential time bombs like Roberts. And THAT was a disaster. WE NEED MORE DATA.

  19. avatar Rusty - Always Carry - Chains says:

    The Democrats are going to try to pack the Court if Joe Biden is elected, no matter what the Senate does now! FDR failed and Biden on his best day was never as sharp as FDR.

  20. avatar To keep and bear arms!!!% keep it simple stupid! says:

    5 million new gun owners in the last few months are not going to vote for lobotomy joe!

    1. avatar enuf says:

      If a new judge is confirmed before the election then a bunch of right-leaning moderates no longer have that reason to vote for Trump. They can tell themselves the Supreme Court is safely conservative, the Second Amendment is in safe territory and vote to remove Trump as the useful idiot he has been.

      If the Senate announces that a confirmation vote cannot be completed before the election, well now that’s a different story. In that case right-leaning moderates will have more difficulty voting for Biden.

      Politics in America is never simple. Don’t kid yourselves that there aren’t people out there weighing these pros and cons and scenarios.

      1. avatar jwm says:

        Man. you work hard to earn that 30 pieces of bloomberg silver, don’t you.

        1. avatar enuf says:

          Man. you work hard to earn that 30 pieces of Putin silver, don’t you.

          That your delusion that all the posts and people against that treasonous pile of dung occupying the Oval Office are in some sort of paid conspiracy employment of the vast and evil Bloomberg Empire.

          Fucking pathetic.

      2. avatar Dude says:

        Don’t kid yourself. Right-leaning moderates aren’t voting for Lobotomy Joe. No serious right leaning person would vote for him because he isn’t for a single right leaning position. He’s been around for 50 years and he doesn’t even have a particular issue that he’s known for. The only thing he stands for is whatever his handlers tell him to stand for. It took him how many months to figure out riots were bad? He only came out against the violence because his handlers told him the polls were changing.

        People aren’t voting for Joe because he’s some great problem solver or the mythical moderate. They’re voting for him because they either want the current left wing policies enacted or just because they don’t like Trump. Imagine being so pathetic that you vote for a weak, senile person, with one foot in the grave, to be president just because Trump hurt your feelings. Sensible people vote for policies and outcomes.

        1. avatar enuf says:

          Hurt feelings? What planet do you live on? He praises dictators from our most dangerous enemies. He insults out military constantly. He can barely hold onto his own senior staff. His White House is the leakiest in modern history.

          Oh yeah, over 200,000 Americans are now dead and he continues to lie about the pandemic.

          Hurt feelings? Are you out of your fucking mind?

        2. avatar frank speak says:

          pretty obvious Joe is a Trojan horse…and once the gates are opened in comes Kameltoe and the whole leftist army….

        3. avatar Dude says:

          “Hurt feelings? What planet do you live on?”

          Yet your rebuttal is about words and unfounded rumors. Laying every virus death on Trump is a joke. Where was Joe’s brilliant plan? He has a platform. Why didn’t he lay out his plan to save America back in January? If he had a plan, and kept it to himself, wouldn’t that make him responsible for the virus deaths? Heck, he couldn’t even admit that closing traffic to China so soon was the right move until two months later. Hindsight is 20/20, but Trump actually moved very fast to secure ventilators and protective equipment. He mobilized hospitals in record time. He did everything in his power to get a vaccine as quickly as possible.

          There’s a saying you should look into enuf. It’s called “keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.” Trump uses this technique often. He has no problem being tough with dictators when it’s called for. He actually has a very good track record on this.

      3. avatar Wake up and smell the coffee says:

        Well said, enuf. Appoint another justice, and cut bait.

        The grifter currently occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue needs to face the music for his wholesale theft in office, emoluments violations, hatch violations, general RICO shenanigans, and potential #TRE45ON. Putin’s Vory silver is exactly what’s in play. Whether he’s actively complicit or a useful idiot doesn’t make much difference while he’s busy destroying the US position internationally, installing kleptocrats to head agencies, and actively undermining the rule of law at every opportunity.

        How can anyone paying attention to anything other than politics as a Red/Blue sport think Trump gives a 💩 at all about gun rights. He gives rare lip service, when he can be bothered to do even that, to try to cement support from a potential voting bloc. He’s basically depending on stupidity from the left to cement support for himself within the gun rights community. He simply ignores the topic as much as possible.

        What’s he actually delivered? Voicing support for a ban on bump stocks.

        Where’s national reciprocity? Dead. Where’s the hearing safety act? Dead. Where’s any update or rollback of NFA? Not even dead, because it never came up — just wishful noises from the community. He had both houses of Congress, and still accomplished nothing — because he Doesn’t. Really. Care. Even the shift of focus related to non-exporting US manufacturers from USML to Department of Commerce took forever, and that didn’t require action by Congress. (One of the very few instances where the administration followed the appropriate comments and change process, actually.) And, that’s ultimately about Money, not gun rights.

        He only cares about his own aggrandizement and enrichment. He’s spent more effort signaling to White Suprematists and the American NAZI Party, and to Q-Morons, to try to shore up his support from them than he has doing anything to support 2nd Amendment rights. Read that again. We rate less attention from him than the nut jobs.

        What do you think happens to the 2nd Amendment if he cheats his way to another term? He’ll start trying to find reasons to attack gun rights because wanna-be dictators don’t want the zombie masses to be armed when he finds some excuse to try to extend to a third term. News flash. He’s not kidding when he says he wants to remain in power indefinitely, and have his face on Mount Rushmore. He’s a lifetime criminal, sociopathic, toxic narcissist trying to stay ahead of the snowballing mass of well-deserved criminal charges while embezzling everything he or his cronies can lay their hands on. Criminal immunity, the power of the pardon, and an Attorney General who’s spent a career writing about his unconstitutional theory about a “unitary executive” (read king) defending him at the taxpayers expense while he’s in office are tools he doesn’t want to loose.

        What good is a friendly SCOTUS if he destroys the rule of law?

    2. avatar J. Smith says:

      Sure they will, the same as millions of union workers will vote and have voted democrat as they watch/ed their jobs and industries disappear for the last 40 years. The american voter votes for what they think is best for them, not the country. Same as the voter voting for a single issue they think is beneficial to them while ignoring illiberal policies that are destructive to their livelihood even while who they vote for professes raising taxes. Who would ever vote for anyone stating they will raise taxes? The same idiots that recently bought firearms that will vote for a politician that states they’ll take them. That is lefty double-think, the ability to hold two conflicting ideas at the same time.

  21. avatar J. Smith says:

    You had me at good looking and not a lesbian or a drunk.

  22. avatar Mark H says:

    Nobody is voing FOR Nutty Uncle Joe. The Dem base is energized to vote AGAINST Trump.

    Nominating and confirming a SCOTUS justice is not goint to make them angrier and motivated more. They are already at peak-outrage. On the other hand, the average american who isn’t paying attention to anything always likes backing a “winner”. And putting a new judge on the Court right before an election is a big win.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Wow! Do you actually believe any of that or are you just having a bit of fun?

    2. avatar jwm says:

      I live in the San francisco bay area. Leftist heartland. Just like hillary in 16 I see no love for biden. I can even show billboards on our freeways that are pro Trump.

      Trump is going to win this go round. He needs that new scotus justice to help fight off the scatter brained challenges to his win.

      I look forward to the moment when I can tell enuf and miner49er ‘thank you’ for making a second term possible for Trump.

    3. avatar Dude says:

      In Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” he talks about the importance of momentum and timing. Getting a SC Justice confirmed would definitely count as momentum.

      1. avatar frank speak says:

        seize the moment!…

  23. avatar enuf says:

    Democrats potential for packing the Supreme Court are very slim. Not impossible but it would be Constitutional. Congress would have to pass legislation and provide funding. There is little to no chance that could happn in today’s sick, twisted, diseased, hatred drenched politics between the two parties.

    Historically the size of the court has gone up and down and for varied reasons both political and practical. When the court size was reduced it was by way of attrition, either retirement or death. In very short form then, this:

    1789, The first Supreme Court begins with the number at 6.
    1807, Congress increased the number of justices to 7.
    1837, Congress raised the number of justices to 9.
    1863, Congress raised the number of justices to 10.
    1866, Congress reduced the number of justices 7.
    1869, Congress raised the number of justices to 9.
    1937, FDR proposed legislation to increase the number of justices in event of serving justices exceeding the age of 70 years and 6 months. The potential was for up to 15 justices. The bill was extremely unpopular and was never voted on. FDR went on to remake the Supreme Court the normal way. Also, two justices altered their views on the Constitutionality of New Deal legislation, negating FDR’s reason to attempt altering the number of justices.

  24. avatar doesky2 says:

    Fvck that shit of waiting until Friday.
    Get the ball rolling now and announce the candidate today.
    Every day is precious.

    The Dems have been putting out dire warnings over COVID so that dictates that we do a ZOOM hearing instead of the Dem grandstanding in the typical clown-show speechifying.

    Harder for MoFoMedia to stoke the public rage when it’s a stupid ZOOM mtg.

  25. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    I have no idea who this woman is. But I’m sure the Democrats, Libertarians Liberals and the Left, will all tell me, that she has consensual sex with horses. Like they do in Washington State. Or some other activity that I might not approve of. Running a dungeon for example? Anything that will avoid the issues.

    I’m sure the atheist can’t wait to tell me that she’s a Christian. And a breeder!!!

    But does she support repealing the NFA???

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      does anybody on capitol hill support repealing the NFA?…think you already know the answer…

  26. avatar AllArms says:

    “I would prefer that Judge Barrett had skipped the whole dangerousness argument. After all, if you can be trusted to walk the streets, you can be trusted with a firearm.”

    I think that’s the whole point. If somebody isn’t too dangerous to let out, they aren’t too dangerous to have their right to possess firearms. And, if they are too dangerous to possess firearms, perhaps they shouldn’t be out.

  27. avatar Hannibal says:

    It could be worse but there are many judges out there who have clear records of caselaw on the topic that we wouldn’t have to read tea leaves about.

  28. avatar possum says:

    Bet money nobody’s in until after the election.

    1. avatar hawkeye says:

      Kinda with possum on this. Conservatives tend to do the “aw shucks” thing whenever they have an advantage, and end up fumbling the football. We’re too dad-blamed nice.
      Not enough of us can look someone in the eye while sliding the blade in, whereas the Leftists do it as a way of life. I don’t think the Senate will be able to pull off a confirmation prior to the election, although for many of the reasons noted in various comments above, I hope I’m wrong.

  29. avatar Jim Wildrick Jr says:

    All responsible gun owners can only hope if she is nominated she will support our second amendment.The Supreme court is long overdue to hear a case on the right to bear arms.The current court has dodged this far to long.States that circumvent gun rights have been allowed to do so for far to long.The high court needs to re-affirm our rights.

    1. avatar frank speak says:

      think they’re waiting for something the public perceives as egregious….

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email