Amy Coney Barrett, President Trump's new Supreme Court Justice, is strong on 2A cases. Perhaps the best 2A choice of anyone. Look at what some legitimate news sources say:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... acker.html
.By John R. Lott Jr.September 24, 2020

The Second Amendment is hanging in the balance, and Trump’s Supreme Court nomination this Saturday will determine its fate. All of Trump’s likely nominees would likely be strong on this issue. But Barrett has the clearest record, having actually ruled on such cases. Barrett is also the most feared by liberals, some of whom concede that she has “a topnotch legal mind.”..........................
Barrett sets a higher bar for regulations. In Kanter v. Barr (2019), she had no problem with banning gun ownership by those who have a demonstrated tendency toward violence. But when it comes to constitutional rights, absent any evidence of the effectiveness of such a ban, Barrett argued that a blanket rule which applies even to nonviolent felons would be going too far. Barrett's careful analysis of the history of gun regulations reveals a formidable legal mind.


https://www.ammoland.com/2020/09/amy-co ... nt-jurist/
Judge Barrett is young, personable, and extremely bright. When analyzing and deciding cases, Judge Barrett applies the methodology of the late eminent Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked after graduating from Notre Dame Law School, fist in her class, Summa Cum Laude.
Consistent with the methodology employed by the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, her brilliant mentor, Judge Barrett construes the Constitution in strict accordance with its original meaning. In that respect, Barrett is Ginsburg’s polar opposite.


And there are some "progressive" (read: Commie/anti-Constitutional) news outlets already smearing the hell out of her, even before she hasn't yet officially been announced by Prez Trump.

It's gonna get ugly, and the lying and smears will be as thick, or even worse than Brett Kavanaugh.

But there seems to be enough Republican Senate support for ACB, stay tuned.

ACB is good news for us. Don't let the liars get away with their smears. With ACB on board, let's get a couple of test cases in front of the Supremes and square the attacks on 2A rights once and for all, or at least a generation.

She clerked for Scalia, and tends to rule in similar fashion. He was was a proponent of originalist interpretation of the Constitution.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia defined "originalism" this way:

"The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living, but dead, or as I prefer to call it, enduring. It means today not what current society, much less the court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted."


(Scalia quote from NPR : https://www.npr.org/2016/02/14/46674446 ... philosophy)

I'm beaming with excitement that Trump will be seating 33% of the SCOTUS this 1st term, all of whom are strong Constitutionalists and Conservatives. Pro-gun, pro-life (everyone has a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"), and aligned values that most or all of us want reflected in society.

It's an amazing thing!

A 2nd Trump term likely sees at least 2 more appointments, maybe 3.

Besides Kanter v Barr is there anything?

I would have preferred one of the others from the big list that publicly mentioned semi autos in their rulings but among the 4 female finalists and 1 other guy I guess Barrett is the best.

We need a 4th for for semi auto and mag ban certiorari and a 5th vote to overturn them at trial. Tired of being fucked by Roberts.

I hope you are right. We can't keep going. The court had 10 good gun cases last session and didn't take any of them, likely because of Roberts. It's time to make him irrelevant.

There's a new semi auto appeal working up from CA right now. Is Barrett is confirmed it may land in SCOTUS next year or the year after.

I'd like to be the first come forward and announce, METOO, she touched me....

jukk0u, brotharz, did she touch you too????

I'd be ok with it if she touched me

On a serious note, God given unalienable rights are not subject to a vote, not by congress, not by the senate, not by the supreme court, not by ANYONE.

We should not be acquiescing to the courts having the power to change that which cannot be changed. God given UNALIENABLE RIGHTS are just that.

Even this fucked up piece of shit liberal rachel maddow understands this in the video below, we should too...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZI2HuKLvIA

Just curious, which unalienable rights are you talking about?

I'm talking about the 2nd amendment unalienable rights, but I'm using the liberal's own weapon against them, rachel maddow. Unalienable rights are unalienable rights, 1st, 2nd, or other, and I like the rachel maddow video because here she is defending our very own stance, that our rights are non-negotiable. I've used this video to silence many a liberal who has said that our rights can be limited by politicians.

Self defense. What were you thinking?

..................

Woke up to 'Meet the Press'

Boy ol Chucky Todd is a Dem bootlicker.



Who watches that shit?

Odd how Repubes can't or won't object to leftist judges on positions.

Add me to the #MeToo list of men who wanna be inappropriately touched by her.

It's a serious question asking for a serious reply.

Regarding the 1A: Should there be any restrictions on it, such as military members speaking on matters of highly sensitive or secret information, like attack planning or missile launch codes? Or speech like threats or inciting violence?

Regarding the 2A: Should there be any restrictions, such as disarming a criminal suspect incident to detention, or disarming a prison population, or disarming the dangerous mentally insane who are fit to be in society and not locked up (like a split personality disorder, or paranoid delusional type...).