[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by Colt1911Forever

You are right a Summa Cum Laude Grad from Princeton who received the highest undergrad merit scholarship honor the school gives out and who got her JD from Yale while being the editor of the law journal. She has been on the federal bench since Bush I put her there. The 2nd Circuit appeals court is dynamic court which she has handled well. She is clearly qualified to be a Supreme Court Judge.

Colt, if you are trying for sarcasm, you might want to watch your grammar - otherwise it doesn't tend to make much sense.

But you bring up a great point, here is someone who has graduated from an Ivy League Law School and has a considerable academic career and federal judge experience, and yet in the Maloney v. Cuomo decision, she doesn't even discuss the fact that Presser predated the doctrine of selective incorporation via due process or discuss how that might affect the Plaintiff's case. In fact, none of her Second Amendment decisions (including her 2004 decision that says the Second is a collective right) has much scholarship in it at all.

So here we have what by all accounts is a distinguished legal scholar making rulings against the Second Amendment and then declining to explain or expound on the legal scholarship behind those rulings? What are we to make of that? Is that the kind of judge you think makes an acceptable Supreme Court Justice?

Yes JWT.... if it was not attached to the CC bill and got full debate and coverage I do not believe it would have passed.

As I noted earlier and maestro pistolero noted, the amendment passed by a supermajority in both houses of Congress in order to be attached to the credit card bill. Of course you are right that it wouldn't have passed as a standalone bill - the Democratic House leadership or Senate Judiciary committee would have killed it in its crib as they control the committees and legislative process. However, I'll just note that every time the bill got a floor vote, it wasn't lacking for support. Apparently the wishes of the Senate Judiciary committee aren't always in line with a supermajority of Senators.

I am glad it did but it is not representative of the real tone of the country.

I don't get this comment... it had plenty of popular support in both the Senate and the House, who are there to represent the tone of the country. Surely your aren't suggesting that the Democratic leadership's failure to kill the bill by roundfiling it in committee isn't representative of the tone of the country more than the votes of 400+ Senators and Representatives?

There are lots of boots on the ground from the NRA telling the new Dems from traditionally conservative areas that if you do not vote for this we will crush you in the next election.

All the more reason we should be telling these Senators that the NRA is right and that we oppose the appointment of judges who can't read the plain intent of the Second Amendment and apply it in cases.