Gun Rights | 10:35 a.m. On the right to bear arms, under the 2nd Amendment, although Mr. Holder said he had sided with those who believed it did not confer an individual right, he pointed out the Supreme Court had ruled that it does in the recent gun law case involving Washington, D.C. “The reality is now the Supreme Court has spoken and that is now the law of the land,” and must be respected, he said. [More]Live-blogging the Holder hearings...
He sounds almost as convincing as the Republicans, doesn't he?
Well then. Nice to know he's on our side. Forget all that arm-waving I've been doing. I'll tell Jeff Knox we got the "All Clear."
No?
[Via Bow]
UPDATE: Huh. Looks like Halbrook's gonna speak.
[Via Mack H]
6 comments:
And to think I was worried! I feel so silly now.
I hope he gets his head beaten in with a brick in a Washington D.C. riot, although that would mean we'd end up with "brick control" and I'd have to remodel my home and some fencing...
I've followed a couple of the live blogs of the hearings from work.
Here is the latest from the NYT:
"Senator Hatch returns to basically lend his endorsement to Mr. Holder’s confirmation: “I look forward to your being confirmed. I hope you will do it in a nonpartisan way.”"
Not looking good for the home team.
Oh for crying out loud. Nine people in black robes are not the "law of the land". The Law of the Land is written in English on a piece of paper. I will accept that "interpretation" is a power possessed by the Court, if everyone else can accept that it normally does not involve completely inverting the meaning of the interpreted words.
I hope the disarmers aren't under the impression that we're oblivious to what's happening: Holder as the first pick, and a piece of legislation immediately following--which assigns the powers normally associated with the individual in that "individual right" to a single person in the Attorney General role. What the hell is that? Another extra-constitutional novelty to make a matching set with Hank Paulson-type free markets?
The Supreme Court has weighed in before on the right to counsel, but that didn't prevent the creation of the Holder Memo, did it? The 111th Congress has a job for the next Attorney General, and it's important that this person not be excessively burdened by ethics.
"argue an expansive view of the 2nd Amendment"
excuse me, EXPANSIVE!!?!?!?!?!
AntiCitizenOne
Good Grief, I read the piece on Politco.com:
"Specter and other top Republicans, including Karl Rove, the former top political advisor to President Bush, have raised concerns about whether Holder can be truly independent from the president."
They're still uncertain about this? Holder helped chose a VP for Obama, in the position of campaign senior legal advisor. And, dammit all, there's that Chicago connection again: Blagojevich was a former client of Holder's (non-Illinois) law firm.
I applaud Senate Republicans for digging deep, but it's pretty obvious that Obama has no qualms about working closely with Holder, and I doubt that's going to change just because it's after January 20th.
Post a Comment