Ketanji Brown Jackson
Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
Previous Post
Next Post

By Larry Keane

Anyone expecting Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearing to be a firework show when it came to gun rights was disappointed. President Joe Biden’s nominee answered questions posed by probing U.S. senators, but some of those answers gave reason for pause.

Although Judge Jackson noted the U.S. Supreme Court in Heller affirmed the Second Amendment is an individual right, her full testimony was revealing. Judge Jackson demurred on questions surrounding concealed carry, spoke of the importance of Court precedent and refused to define her judicial philosophy.

Individual Rights

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) started off the three-days of marathon questioning of Judge Jackson getting to the heart of the matter.

“Do you believe the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right?” Sen. Grassley asked.

Judge Jackson answered, “Senator, the Supreme Court has established that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right.”

Sen. Grassley pressed further asking the judge to describe how she would decide what a fundamental right is under the Constitution. Judge Jackson pointed to Court precedent that serves as a guide for how justices would discern fundamental rights. She added that those precedents set the standards for determining if rights are fundamental, including the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause as it applies to liberty and personal autonomy.

“That’s the tradition of the Court for determining if something is fundamental in that way,” she added.

Later, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) pressed the question to Judge Jackson again, particularly when it came to whether local governments can enforce subjective standards in order to actually bear arms outside the home. Judge Jackson demurred, indicating that question is pending a decision before the Supreme Court. That question is at the heart of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, that challenges New York’s “may issue” policy of requiring law-abiding citizens to show “good reason” to obtain a concealed carry permit.

“The Second Amendment, that right to keep and bear arms, is enumerated in the text of the Constitution,” Sen. Blackburn said. “So, the question would be ‘why should it have to have an extra burden?’”

Judge Jackson held firm that it would be improper for her to offer an answer to a case yet undecided.

The Reload’s Stephen Gutowski rightly noted that the question goes beyond those posed by NYSRPA v. Bruen. “Several states also require licensing for buying handguns, and Hawaii requires them for shotgun and rifle purchases as well,” Gutowski wrote. “The Court may hear numerous gun permitting cases in the years ahead, and Jackson’s view of how far Second Amendment protections extend may play a significant role.”

Judge Jackson closed the question with this answer.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson
Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

“Current Supreme Court precedent says that under the Second Amendment there is an individual, fundamental right to keep and bear arms in the home,” she said.

That answer was curious, and wrong. Tom Knighton of Bearing Arms pointed out that the final three words – “in the home” – isn’t a qualifier for the Second Amendment. Knighton correctly wrote that Heller addressed Dick Heller’s challenge to Washington, D.C.’s laws that prohibited him from keeping a firearm in his home, but there is no mention of that restriction in the text of the Second Amendment. And Heller explains in detail that “bear” means to carry arms outside the home for lawful purposes.


Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) pressed Judge Jackson on the importance of Court precedent when it comes to deciding cases. This is particularly important as there are gun-related cases that are being petitioned to the Supreme Court now, including Young v. Hawaii, which presents the question of whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home and if the denial of a handgun carry license for self-defense violates Second Amendment rights. Duncan v. Bonta challenges California’s ban on standard capacity magazines. Bianchi v. Frosh challenges Maryland’s ban on Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs).

Sen. Cornyn revisited Judge Jackson’s affirmation of the Supreme Court’s Heller decision and whether Judge Jackson viewed the precedent set by that case to be on equal footing with Roe v. Wade.

“I’m not aware of any ranking or grading of precedents. All precedents of the Supreme Court are entitled to respect on an equal basis,” Judge Jackson replied.

That might suggest that should any of the pending petitions before the Supreme Court Justice Jackson would be guided by Heller’s precedent. Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor both similarly testified during their confirmation hearings they would be bound by Heller’s precedent too, but that wasn’t apparent from their questions during oral argument in NYSRPA v. Bruen.

Justice Kagan posed the question whether Heller put a “stamp of approval” on certain gun control measures. Justice Sotomayor said she couldn’t “get past all that history” of gun regulations.


Unlike Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh or Neil Gorsuch, who all clearly identified their judicial philosophy of originalism – that the words of the law mean what was meant at the time of their writing – Judge Jackson refused to apply a label to her judicial line of thought.

Judge Jackson was asked if she adhered to a philosophy of a “living constitution” or that the meaning of the law is applied to modern understanding. She didn’t answer the question saying only that she is “bound by the methods of constitutional interpretation that the Supreme Court has adopted, and I have a duty not to opine on the Supreme Court’s chosen methodology or suggest that I would undertake to interpret the text of the Constitution in any manner other than as the Supreme Court has directed.”

Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and a practicing criminal defense attorney, in a Fox News opinion column wrote that her answer was confusing because justices are permitted to have guiding philosophies and have testified to it. In fact, Judge Jackson previously answered the question “no” when she was nominated for the district court.

Turley pointed out that it was then-Sen. Biden who told the late-Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that Senate confirmation hearings were meant to discuss judicial philosophies.

But we do have a window into Judge Jackson’s judicial philosophy, however, and the view is deeply troubling for Second Amendment rights. Judge Jackson, who clerked for retiring-Justice Stephen Breyer, testified in essence that he is her mentor and said, “I would hope to carry on his spirit.” Of course, Justice Breyer authored a dissent in Heller setting out an interest-weighing analysis for the Second Amendment.

Despite being expressly rejected by the majority in Heller, most federal courts of appeals in Second Amendment cases have applied Judge Jackson’s mentor’s interest-weighing analysis where the government nearly always wins. This has not gone unnoticed by conservative members of the Supreme Court who have at times dissented in denials of petitions for a writ of certiorari in Second Amendment cases.

The Senate Judiciary Committee is slated to vote on Judge Jackson’s nomination April 4. All expectations are that the committee vote will be tied, which would mean Judge Jackson’s nomination would be required to be discharged to the full Senate. If the vote is tied evenly there, Vice President Kamala Harris could be tie-breaking vote to seat Judge Jackson on the Supreme Court.


Larry Keane is SVP for Government and Public Affairs, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • By her scatterbrain answers she views the USSC as the ultimate authoritarian and don’t give her any We The People crap sorta goes without saying.

      Once again incompetence and cowardliness runs the show. Not one question was asked regarding Gun Control. It was the usual Second Amendment on the hot seat while the bozo the clown nominee does a rehearsed song and dance routine.

      God forbid taking the Second Amendment off the hot seat and placing Gun Control on the hot seat. Would it be a crime to ask her if she sees any connection between Gun Control and slavery, the kkk, nooses, Jim Crow and other race based atrocities attributed to her democRat Party?

      Frankly…You could pick a number from a phone book and find a much better qualified Black American to sit on the USSC.

      • IF one’s only criteria is black with vagina (real or imagined) this is what you end up with. The demtards will approve her even though clearly her contempt for the Consitution disqualifies her from taken the oath for her current judgeship. Pathetic.

        What rainbow unicorn with Slo Joey nominate for the next opening. The progs are now gunning for Judge Thomas (BS out of the phoneyass “Jan 6 commission”).

        • Her judicial philosophy is the goal, not the byproduct of selecting based on race and gender. They want somebody who will rule in their favor, regardless of if it is in direct contradiction to written law. She’s proven that she will do just that by ruling that the Trump administration needed to submit rules for approval of immigration enforcement changes, despite the law saying ‘Such designation shall be in the sole and unreviewable discretion of the Attorney General and may be modified at any time.’ Her stupidity was overruled on appeal, but she managed to stop Trump for a while.

    • This is what you get when skin color and having a vagina are your only listed requirements. The fundamental belief in human rights coming from God or just being born with them as a free person, is not a requirement of your belief system.

      • “Judge Jackson graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University, then attended Harvard Law School, where she graduated cum laude and was an editor of the Harvard Law Review”

        Slightly more qualifications than you seem to indicate.

        And didn’t Donald Trump commit to a Supreme Court nominee with a vagina as well? So really the problem is the skin color, interesting.

        • minor MINER49ER Excuse me, but what does a person having a vagina have to do with making her a Supreme Court Justice. Seems you think that is a “qualification”?

          So what if Donald Trump nominated a woman to the court? She was qualified. Graduating “Magna Cum Laude or Cum Laude” does not make you qualified. Your understanding of the Constitution does.

          Jackson is clearly your qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.

      • MinorIQ, you pathetic moron, if you actually believe that a Harvard degree confers qualifications? You are too stupid to reproduce. Harvard lawyers are a pathetic joke, and real lawyers curb-stomp their pompous @$$es for s***s and giggles. Harvard trains congressmen and judges, not lawyers. But OF COURSE you are a credentialist. You believe quality and validation comes from a piece of paper . . . because you are stupid. IF you are capable, remove your head from rectal defilade, and actually try thinking, for a change. Oh, who am I kidding, you couldn’t think if they gave you instructions.

  1. Just as Breyer would reverse Heller / McDonald if given the chance, so would Jackson. No big mystery here.

    Unfortunately, Machin has just announced he’ll vote for confirmation, so barring a Dem senator being incapacitated for the final vote, she’s going through. (I predict Collins and Mittens will vote for her as well. Murkowski would like to, but I suspect she’ll either be absent to vote no once the outcome isn’t in doubt.

    On a more positive note, Justice Thomas has been released from the hospital.

    • Mrs(sorry I ass-umed it’s gender)Jackson is the perfect dim leftist. Like the moose-lamb lying doctrine Taqiya. As a gal on the court she’ll be protected by guys with gats. She had kids so it’s ok to murder babies. She may or may not be worse than Sotomayor. Good to hear Thomas is doing better…

        • Minor MINER49ER So fricking what? You Leftists only think that a free speech is for you Neanderthals alone?

        • Oh, my goodness, MinorIQ is trying to flex!!! STFU, Leftist/fascist trash. When Hunter Biden was selling his dad’s influence for big bucks, where was your outrage?? Oh, it’s OK when your side does it??

          You suck @$$, MinorIQ. You are stupid, ignorant, and annoying. Please stop abusing us with your half-wit (actually more like quarter-wit) “opinions”. WE. DON’T. GIVE. A. FLYING. F***. You are too stupid to insult. Hie thyself off to the theological place of eternal punishment.

    • “On a more positive note, Justice Thomas has been released from the hospital.”

      That kind of a health scare we just don’t need right now.

      On her answer to the question –

      “Do you believe the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right?” Sen. Grassley asked.

      Judge Jackson answered, “Senator, the Supreme Court has established that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right.”

      Translation – The Court, not her, has established the right, therefore, as a justice, she’s free to rescind that right… 🙁

      • Her answer should have been a simple “yes”. Does she think the Constitution is just a list of suggestions?

        • No, Diksum, she actually thinks (like Obama) that the Constitution is an impediment to the “perfect” Leftist/fascist state. It means what she wants it to mean, at the time.

          Inherent rights are a fiction invented by us “Reich-wing” types, to harsh their mellow. She’s smarter than you, so shut up, peasant!!

      • Good catch, Geoff, and I agree with your interpretation. When a person reaches the upper echelons of politics (and make no mistake…the SCOTUS is pure politics), the art of wordplay, dodge, and deflection is at its highest form. Jackson was directly asked a question regarding her personal stance on a matter, and she avoided answering it by foot-shuffling to the side and pointing to something else that appeared to have the shape of an answer, but was not.

        A good example of this tomfudgery is Hillary Clinton’s classic go-to strategy whenever she wanted to avoid a direct question during an interview:

        INTERVIEWER: “Do you believe the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right?”

        CANKLES: “I think the real question here is why we allow weapons of war to be widely sold on the streets where our children live…”

        (No, Cankles, the real question is the one you were asked. Answer that first, and then we’ll consider discussing a second question.)

        • Earlier by another senator she was asked a ‘Roe v. Wade’ question and answered definitively in the affirmative, and even spoke the magic words – “…a woman’s right…”.

          Strange how she knew what woman was *then*, but not later when asked by another senator (Cruz?) what a woman was.

          Disingenuous is the mark of a Leftist Scum… 🙁

    • Thomas needs a food tester and 24/7 armed security. If they take him out, the Constitution is finished.

  2. this is all bluster
    shes a cultural marxist
    otherwise she wouldnt have been nominated
    and the same part of her
    that is set on normalizing
    and eventually decriminalizing pedophilia
    has zero desire for any 2nd amendment protections
    people like her saw the movie schindlers list
    and came away from it thinking
    “hey…what a great how-to manual for a society”

  3. She is a liar and far left activist, but I repeat myself. She has no business being a Supreme Court Justice. She will unfortunately be confirmed. Thankfully she won’t flip the Court

  4. “Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor both similarly testified during their confirmation hearings they would be bound by Heller’s precedent too…”

    Sotomayor lied. After claiming this during her hearing, she then proceeded to vote (in the minority) to overturn Heller in the McDonald v. Chicago follow-on case.

    Fool us once, shame on you.
    Fool us TWICE, shame on US!!!

    I don’t think Joe Biden would have chosen a nominee that was unwilling to lie about their views on the Second Amendment. That’s simply a part of the job requirement for Democrat judges facing confirmation these days.

  5. quote————-That might suggest that should any of the pending petitions before the Supreme Court Justice Jackson would be guided by Heller’s precedent.———quote

    In reality the Trump stacked Radical Conservative Court renders any decision Jackson may make irrelevant. I would also remind the radical Far Right that Trump’s court has already refused to hear several 2A cases letting lower anti-gun court rulings stand and they were rulings by Conservative Judges. A stab in the back to all gun owners.

    The outrageous, and blatantly vicious behavior by Lindsey Graham and other Far Right Radicals was shockingly apparent and was seething in racism as well.

    In Jackson’s defense she vowed to uphold the integrity of the Court by adhering to prior court decisions, something Trump’s radical extreme Far Right Court Justices have trashed and stomped into the mud. Judge Sotomayor has stated the trashing of the courts integrity will result in its downfall as a governmental organization. Most Americans with any grey matter between their ears trust the Supreme Court no farther than they can spit or fart.

    I might add the Scalia decision has been largely ignored by both the State and Federal Courts since the ink was barely dry on his written document. Anti-gun laws were for the most part all blessed by the power mad courts who hate guns with a passion as firearms are a threat to their absolute power over both the legislature and the people of the U.S. They legislate from the bench something that was never intended for the courts to do. They are truly even more disgusting than the politicians and that is truly shocking. They pay no more attention to the Constitution than they would to a dead dog lying in the street and the Constitution has certainly become the dead dog of the Courts.

    • I remember you. You’re the a-hole who always posts delusional crap to try to get a rise out of conservatives. Notice no one here has taken the bait?

    • “Judge Sotomayor has stated the trashing of the courts integrity will result in its downfall as a governmental organization.”

      She ought to know…

      Unfortunately, you are half right. The court has been abusing power and “legislating from the bench” for a while now. At least for the 20ish years I’ve been paying attention and probably MUCH longer. Your mistake is your tunnel vision focus on “the far-right” and “muh racisms.” You can’t see that you’re favorite politicians, and even you, are just as intellectually crooked as the people that you criticize.

      If the court was true to its purpose, they would eviscerate the government in every case regarding gun laws and tell congress that they will need to amend the constitution if they want a law to stick. Without that, the court is just a third branch of a tyrannical government that only serves to preserve the authority of the state. Consistency and people be damned.

      • “20ish years?” Your history book started with your birth? The progs have been running the courts in the US for over a century.

        Constitution? What dat?

        Until the “Ivy League” charlatan/scamsters are bared will continue to decline.

    • dacian, the Dunderhead. Nice try. You have just confirmed this this “nominee” is not qualified to sit on the bench. You affirm her stance that says the firearm can be kept in the home.

      Excuse me but how is having a firearm in the home, “bearing arms”? Explain that one to me. the whole idea of ‘bearing arms” means to have it in your possession as you deem fit and necessary. Not just in the home.

      Tell the truth and shame the devil, You don’t support the Constitution at all.

      • And who are you, beverly, to admonish someone to “tell the truth…” when you so plainly refuse to tell it yourself? Is it 6yrs as a cop or is it 10yrs as a cop, beverly? Pick one and explain the other.

        • Riderless/ShootOff Canuck. I am an honest man which is far more than I could say about you. you have been trolling me over your lie for how many weeks now?

          I’ve answered that question about as many times as you have fingers and toes. But it seems that trolling if all you know how to do.

          Oh buy the way, we know you don”t support the US Constitution. You’re a Canuck.
          I was not a “cop”. I was a POLICE OFFICER.

          Again, it’s Mr Beverly or Sergeant to you, Canuck. If you can’t respect your elders, respect your betters.

        • Dig dig dig, beverly, dig dig dig. You sure you don’t want to retract those words regarding which one of us is the liar? Think carefully, beverly. And I most certainly do support the US Constitution as the finest document currently penned by man. Or do you think those who find themselves born outside your borders are unable to support it? Rhetorical question, beverly, quite obviously. And it’s been three weeks, beverly, plenty of time (and opportunity) for you to come clean… sarge.

    • dacian, please shut up. No one here believes anything you say. Why would they? BTW. I asked before, but you never replied. How does it feel to always be wrong? I mean, always. Well, anyway, please refrain from commenting here. It costs us time scrolling past your comments without reading them. The only reason I took the time to post this reply is because I’m on the toliet taking a shit. Oh, you’ll like this. Everyone knows how I hate novelty firearms accessories. I did recently contact a “novelty” company. The reason I called is I wanted to order a quantity of toliet paper with Alfred Newman’s likeness on every square.
      ( Nice segue, don’t you think?)

      I think I can make a fortune selling only it on this site exclusively. These people make their money making stupid people look stupid. dacian, they said they wouldn’t even have to try in your case. In fact, when I told them about you( I was on speaker phone by then) they all laughed, offered me a 20% discount and said they were closing the office early for Mexican and margaritas. Seems they wanted to start the weekend with a good joke. dacian, I know you’re “Thick As A Brick”. Look it up. (Dan we’ll work out your commission later). In the meantime the novelty company is looking into copy right issues. I’ll keep you advised. If I can pull this off I’ll be wealthy. BTW. This post and all information within is now considered the intellectual property of… Well, somebody and will get your ass sued if you try to steal it!

  6. She, and every other judge in this country, should open they’re eyes and recognize what the People are saying and doing re: 2A. 24 States (soon to be 26) have passed permitless carry laws. Over 150 million of us own over 400 million firearms, and about 30% or more carry a firearm with or without a permission slip every day, and that doesn’t include LE of whatever description. Supreme Court precedent means exactly zero in today’s world. We will be armed despite any legal rulings to the contrary.

  7. There was a reason she was behind such a large podium during the questioning. It was to conceal the Democrats with their hand up her rear using her to speak like a seasame street character.

  8. My preferred candidate is someone who is an originalist.
    She is not an originalist.

    • Daniel S.

      Agree. Jackson does not give a rodent’s rear-end about the Constitution. She thinks it is a racist document. She will over-rule the Constitution everytime her ‘heart’s tell her to so do.

  9. On a more basic note, she is supremely unqualified to be an associate justice because she’s been an appellate court judge for less than a year. So now they want to give her a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, an appellate only court? There are many very important jobs here for which no one with so little experience would be considered – think airline pilot, surgeon, ship captain, McDonalds manager.

    • Diksum, remember. Biden’s only qualifications for the position were B/F. I heard him say it. I could have gotten him a hundred candidates. Within a few blocks of my house.

  10. Anything that grifter says is bvllsheet.

    With the likely confirmation of the non-biologist and Clarence Thomas’ illness, we could be witnessing a total shift in the high Court from right-leaning to extreme leftist. God help us all.

    • “Kudos on a well written article.”

      TTAG is always looking for content.

      Write something superior up and submit it, Dan will likely be happy to publish it…

  11. If an enumerated right is declared “fundamental” (re Judge Jackson), doesn’t that mean the matter requires “strict scrutiny”?

    • “…doesn’t that mean the matter requires “strict scrutiny”?”

      Precisely *why* she tap-danced around and dodged the question, Samuel…

      • “Precisely *why* she tap-danced around and dodged the question, Samuel…”

        Judge Jackson declared 2A a fundamental right. Isn’t that kinda hard to dance around? Who would believe that 2A is a fundamental right regarding lower federal courts, but not a fundamental right for the Supreme Court. It is the majority of the Supreme Court who would be faced with a two-level process for scrutiny of a fundamental right. A process applicable to only 2A.

  12. “Current Supreme Court precedent says that under the Second Amendment there is an individual, fundamental right to keep and bear arms in the home,” she said.

    This is literally true. This was the holding in Heller, which is the only Supreme Court authority on the subject. Whether or not the Second contains any limiting language (obviously it does not) was outside the scope of the question. Moreover, it is well established that a nominee is essentially required to demur to questions that address questions currently pending before the Supreme Court, so I really didn’t expect any explicit answers, Not only is the carry issue pending, but a case being held, Young v. Hawaii, directly addresses whether there is a right to bear outside the home, an issue Scalia did NOT address in Heller. Since she might partici8pate in the latter if confirmed, it would be improper for her to prejudge the case. Prejudge is, after all, the root of prejudice.

    • Heller explains that “bear” also means to carry arms outside the home for lawful purposes.

  13. So “Judge Jackson Affirms Right to Keep and Bear Arms” ? How so? All she did basically was avoid direct answers involving her own philosophy, demurred, and basically say the SCOTUS says. She deliberately avoided the substantial answers these hearings are intended to get in a manner so she answered but really didn’t say anything – she knows what they are asking, and on several things she was wrong and she did this deliberately which is somewhat deceptive.

    She learned from the Chipman hearings to avoid real answers. I wish they would have asked her to define a civilian AR-15 MSR.

    • “and basically say the SCOTUS says”

      bingo. the goal is that the law becomes whatever the boolsheviks want it to be at any given moment, or else. jackson is part of that process.

  14. When asked if she could define what a woman was, she said she could not because she is “not a biologist”, so she has no business discussing firearms (she can not even define firearm) because she is certainly not a gunsmith…

    • Conceding that she could not define “woman” because she’s not a biologist also concedes that gender is a matter of biology.
      “Identifying” as a woman doesn’t cut it. And cutting it doesn’t cut it either, since that doesn’t change biology.

      • Blackburn should have asked her to define “biologist” or asked what the difference is between a man and a woman since she is a mother.

        • “…or asked what the difference is between a man and a woman since she is a mother.”

          It is settled science that there are no differences between men and woman; such a distinction is entirely a societal construct designed to suppress women’s (whoever they are) rights. Humans designated “men” can even give birth. Just because no man has yet given birth doesn’t mean it is not possible. And if not physically possible, a “man” has a perfect right to feel as if they had given birth, and we must accept that as fact, and act accordingly. Feelings are superior to biology, supplanting same.

          What puzzles me is that I am denied my reality that I am only 25yrs old, and my driver’s license must represent that. It also chaps me that I cannot be accepted as the most intelligent person on the planet, and everyone else is as dumb as a box of Aggies.

        • “Just because no man has yet given birth doesn’t mean it is not possible”

          it sure is. zeus carried athena in his thigh.

        • “What puzzles me is that I am denied my reality that I am only 25yrs old, and my driver’s license must represent that.”

          When the reality of your bank account is in the multiples of millions of dollars, knockout 18 year-old girls will reinforce to you personally on a daily basis that you are a handsome, studly 25 years old.

          Note – Once the cash is gone, so will she be gone…

        • Sam, Texas A&M Aggies or New Mexico State Aggies? Or both? Or does it matter? At first I thought Aggies was slang for a semi precious gem which makes sense cuz dumber than a box of rocks. Either way you are smarter than me cuz I don’t know what Aggies are…

  15. So, during the last three SCOTUS appointments the progtards have evolved…………..

    Cavanaugh: Believe ALL women.

    Barrett: Believe SOME women.

    Jackson: WHAT’S A WOMAN!?!? 🤪

    • “Cavanaugh…………. Believe ALL women.

      Barrett………………….Believe SOME women.

      Jackson………………..WHAT’S A WOMAN!?!? ”


      Nicely done.

  16. Good grief. She was coached. She can say anything in these hearings and will not be held accountable if she sits on the bench. These hearings are nothing but a farce.

  17. The thing that amuses me is that she is trying to defer to the supreme court like she’s working in a lower court. The supreme court sets precedence (theoretically within the Constitution’s bounds) and every so often something gets over turned. That said I’d have a feeling that such philosophy would be applied very different by her in the cases of Roe, Heller and McDonald through some weird mental gymnastics e.g. she’d gladly over turn the latter and fall back to precedence for the former.

    Also, it’s wrong for us to expect any different. We’ve seen the games they played with the last few Republican supported SC nominees.

    • “Current Supreme Court Precedent” is whatever the sitting court decides it to be. A court full of liberals could set precedents that wreck the 2A and she would be OK with it.

      • “A court full of liberals could set precedents that wreck the 2A and she would be OK with it.”

        Doesn’t require “a court full of liberals”. History, tradition, and precedent determine what your “rights” are. If history, tradition, and precedent permit infringing “rights”, then such infringements are legitimate government actions.

        Sorta like noting that machine guns can be regulated because they are not in common use, as a result of laws making machine guns not be in common use.

  18. Closet-communist and Trojan horse. She’s a racist negro that thinks the entire world owes her something because she’s black (and obviously still on the plantation by her being a leftist and liberal Democrat). I don’t trust her any more than Feinstein, et al, and never will.

  19. “Senator, the Supreme Court has established that the individual right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right.”

    With no due respect your Honor…The Supreme Court did not establish the individual Right to keep and bear arms…the Constitution already did that…all the Supremes have done is reconfirm a narrow “interpretation” of a small part of that Right.

    Her waffling is further evidenced by this quote where she hedges her answer with “current”, “precedent” and “in the home”. Her answer shows that she is walking a thin line between truth and perjury…“Current Supreme Court precedent says that under the Second Amendment there is an individual, fundamental right to keep and bear arms in the home,” she said.

    She is just another shyster, double-talking lawyer looking to further her Agenda for the rest of her life…at our expense.

    • OG in M,

      “…she is walking a thin line between truth and perjury…“

      Agree. Well-stated!

      I hope all the newly-minted black gun owners are paying attention. This woman will vote every time to restrict, constrain, and infringe upon their rights to own, carry, and obtain ammo for their firearms.

  20. once she’s on the court, it won’t matter what she said in the senate. she’ll be just another boolshevik operative.

  21. Affirms the right to keep and bear arms…accidentally, while pursuing some stupid idea that’ll destroy it.

    You tell me if I got it right. Didn’t bother to read the article, much less whatever word salad this woman spit out. This is the epitome of a diversity hire. They’re filling quotas and checkboxes, and there’s neither quota nor checkbox for “best at actually doing the job.”

  22. Simply lying to get confirmed like Kagan and Sotomayor.
    No more no less.
    Not even fooling Flimsy Graham this time.

  23. “Sam, Texas A&M Aggies or New Mexico State Aggies”

    Had no idea there were “Aggies” outside of Texas. Wonder if they are all the same?

    Who are Texas Aggies? Texas Aggies are the politically correct substitutes for banned Polish and Blonde jokes. Like all stereotypes, Aggie jokes are based on truth, somewhere.

    One of the things weird about Texas Aggies is that they often attach a decal (white square with almost maroon text) declaring that they have ATM cards. Now the point of the decals are allegedly displaying affinity/loyalty to Texas A&M. However, the actual appearance is small T, large A, small M. Using english tradition, one reads the large letter in the middle first, then read the smaller letters from left, to right. Thus, ATM, rather than “texas A and m:. So I would ask people with the decal why it was important to announce to the world they had an ATM card. Usually got blank stared back.

  24. All right, lets cut all the bullshit hair-splitting on precedent case law that was long since established to settle once and for all whether or not ‘SHALL NOT BE FUCKING INFRINGED’ [sic] means that any qualifiers, exceptions, restrictions, limitations, or other prohibitions can be exercised. Which it absolutely, Unequivicolly DOES NOT! Period. No further asinine commie debates. SHALL NOT has always means Not At ALL. or Absolutely NOT! or put another way, No Rights Violating Gun Control of Any Kind Allowed!

    Forget about Heller, check out…

    Miller v. U.S. 230F 2nd 486 489. “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.” (so why does the AFT continue to do this without censure?)

    Marbury v. Madison 5 US (2 Craneh) 137, 174,176, (1803). “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (So why do ‘they’ keep on making illegal, unconstitutional laws?)

    Miranda v, Arizona, 384 US 436p. 491. “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

    Norton v. Shelby County 118 US 425p. 442. “An Unconstitutional Law is NOT Law. It confers no rights; imposes no duties; affords no protection; creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

    There are more cases that confirmed that the Constitutional Law of the land cannot be modified or mitigated or changed on the arbitrary whim of so-called lawmakers. So how do they get away with doing it?

    It’s because a long time ago they began brainwashing the sheeple into thinking that these illegal gun laws could only be dealt with by long drawn out civil court challenges. Never mind that there had already been adequate court changes to dictate otherwise.

    Their little Jeti-mind fuck’ completely brainwashed the fact that these precedents had teeth to their mandates. It so happens that it was and still is a serious felony to deny in any way full appreciation of the individual rights of the 2nd/A under 18-USCC 18-241-242.

    And until we fix that, who gives a SCOTUS Fuck about the latest Brandon Administration Commie court candidate and how deftly she avoids being pinned down to a personal opinion.

    Does anybody really think that any pick under this regime
    would be legit or anything other than a socialist sycophant for their Marxist agenda?

    Only eight months to go!

    • “SHALL NOT has always means Not At ALL. or Absolutely NOT!”

      I ask again, “Why has “Shall not be infringed” not been the basis for a law suit to end all gun control laws?

      Further, who will bring such a suit? Who will enforce “Shall not be infringed”? What is the next step if government rejects, or wins against, a lawsuit based on “Shall not be infringed”? What penalties will be lodged, and enforced (by whom?), against elected officials who violate, through legislation, “Shall not be infringed”?

      Even if the vaunted “Constitutional Convention” were able to get a stronger worded second amendment ratified by all the states, the amendment would be dumped into the same judicial and national political system that exists today. “Compelling government interest” would remain judicial practice regarding the constitution. As would “No amendment/”right” is absolute”. History, tradition, precedent would still drive jurisprudence.

      • “I ask again, “Why has “Shall not be infringed” not been the basis for a law suit to end all gun control laws?”

        WTF? I’ve answered this several times SIA.

        “…….the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

        Those two words…..”THE PEOPLE”, in the statement above refers to the “We the People” in the opening of the Constitution. Those who attempt to undermine and subvert the systems and laws that “We the People” have agreed to live by and abide to, lose some freedoms and rights.

        Convicted felons made their own beds, nobody else did.

        Q: What would happen if no bail/revolving door prisons were combined with ZERO firearm prohibition laws?
        A: The vast majority of US citizens would scream for their “leaders” to remove ALL 2nd rights.

        But that’s EXACTLY what non-thinking progtards and Iconoclasts want.

        When given a choice between dangerous liberty or peaceful slavery, intelligent citizens ALWAYS chose the former. A brief review of history explains why.
        Only subjects chose the latter.

        • “WTF? I’ve answered this several times SIA.”

          Not actually. Proclaiming “Shall Not Be Infringed” has no adjudicated result….that is why the slogan has not been used in court.

          How many elected officials echo “Shall Not Be Infringed”? How many elected officials sponsor “Shall Not Be Infringed” legislation? How many times has “Shall Not Be Infringed” been submitted to the voters?

          If an enumerated, constitutionally-protected human, civil and natural right cannot inhibit government, then we are faced with the reality that “Shall Not Be Infringed” is just virtue signaling.

          The Second Amendment neutralizes any and all federal government infringement on gun ownership; yet, here we are, nibbling at the edges with perishable legislation and timid court rulings.

          Shouting at the wind has not been effective, but it does make us look foolish.

          (note: if you set up a PAC based on “Shall Not Be Infringed”, I will donate)

  25. Breyer was and is on the left wing. As his replacement, Jackson will be little different that the Justice she replaces. Might be a bit more willing to legislate from the bench. Or perhaps a bit more favorable to Marxist/Fascist/Progressive agendas. But, all in all the balance of the court will not change with this appointment. I just hope Thomas stays healthy and on the court until we can get a somewhat conservative President and Senate in control.

  26. Anymouse stated;

    “Her judicial philosophy is the goal, not the byproduct of selecting based on race and gender. They want somebody who will rule in their favor, regardless of if it is in direct contradiction to written law. She’s proven that she will do just that by ruling that the Trump administration needed to submit rules for approval of immigration enforcement changes, despite the law saying ‘Such designation shall be in the sole and unreviewable discretion of the Attorney General and may be modified at any time.’ Her stupidity was overruled on appeal, but she managed to stop Trump for a while.”

    I think this hits the nail on the head and after what horrors was all over the news today about the AG moving to do away with Title 42 which basically removes our ability to charge an illegal with illegal entry. They want open borders and it’s obvious by what she did to slow Trump’s roll she was selected entirely by design and her race and gender would make sure she was voted in.

    It all is starting to make sense now, at least regarding this racist negro that hates the USA, white people, and conservatives It’s obvious guns, namely; the 80% definitions, are on their list of will-be wins unless something is done.

  27. @Geoff “I’m getting too old for this shit” PR
    “Note – Once the cash is gone, so will she be gone…”

    My reality includes the fact that I have unlimited wealth.

  28. And back in the foyer she say ” dont worry about what I say to the conservative Republicans, what politicians dont lie to get elected?”
    – – -Nodding in agreement they enter the room
    9 people dressed in robes have to much power, especially given that power for life. Withe the right “Oh So” Supreme jusges they could destroy the constitution. They’ve all ready twisted the bill of rights so many different ways that all of them have been Infringed .
    We have what they want us to have
    Appointed for Life should have term limits, to much power, and if the appointed for life position must remain in effect , every judge retiring should be executed, blood in,blood out. It’s the way the other gangs work.
    Abolish electoral college
    Abolish appointed for life
    Abolish laws not moral
    Minimum wage from the top down.
    BTW does anyone know what’s supposed to happen in November besides an election, I was talking to a human in the Dollar General who had a mohawk haircut and talked about Jesus
    a lot, and she code talked something was going to happen in November ?
    ..I’m still trying figure during the conversation what she meant when I said, I’d like to have 5.4 million dollars and her reply back to me was, ” You just might get it.” ,, What could that mean? Is something going on I dont know about in November?
    Another concern, I’m definitely hearing more revolution based talk coming from the younger generation 30-45 year old bracket from around this area. Now I dont get to worried when us old fat worn out white guys talk sht, but when much more physically fit younger people talk, some with military training, that’s a little concerning.
    Personally I do not think a civil war would accomplish anything but total chaos.
    We The People have become tremendously dependent on our Federal Government , and subject’s to the local government. And in the same vein the local governments are subject to its dependency on Federal government.
    Crashing it down would put a hurt on us for quite a time, worse case ontario , we’d be speaking Chinese.
    Yep, I better start practicing Hunter Biden forgeries before it gets to late .

  29. Why all the sturm and drang? Jackson will be confirmed, regardless of any opposition…unless Manchin, Senima, or both, can be persuaded to vote “absent”, or with Republicrats (and that assumes “Mit the twit”, and the other usual suspects won’t side with Dims).

    • And if Collins and Mittens don’t do their normal s***, and stab us in the back.

      The mistake was made in Marbury v. Madison, when SCOTUS announced that it was the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution meant. Our Founders felt that ALL Constitutional officers should be guided by the Constitution. An unconsitutional law is an unconstitutional law, and having some half-wit Harvard or Yale law school graduate say it doesn’t make it so. The Constitution was intended by our Founders to be accessible, and understandable, to any citizen. Now we have to have black-robed idjits tell us what plain language means. What part of “shall not be infringed” is difficult to parse? Only peabrained morons like MinorIQ think that Article I, Section * authorizes Congress to enact general gun control, when any halfwit can easily see that it authorized nothing of the sort. We need a bunch of black-robed authoritarians to tell us what a simple document says, because we’re weak, and easily misled.

      Judge Jackson is a Leftist/fascist idiot, and she was selected because she checked the right boxes, and would rule reliably in favor of the powers that be. And she’ll be confirmed . . . duh! The question is, why do idjits like this get to tell us what the document says and what it “means”. Because we let them. “Mister Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” Pres. Jackson wasn’t the brightest light on the string, but he got that one right.

      • Marbury v. Madison was the tipping point (and so soon after the founding). Few know that at the time, the President, and Chief Justice were intensively feuding, politically. The real betrayal of the Constitution is that Congress did not slap the Chief Justice down with legislation/amendment restricting the jurisdiction of the courts). The public electorate of the time also failed to discipline their representatives. Everybody but the President was content to let things be.

        Published articles in “The Federalist”, and writings between the framers of the Constitution warned of a Supreme Court that would be the ultimate authority.

Comments are closed.