While it may be “inappropriate” for a judge to weigh in on a specific case before confirmation — for legitimate reasons, including not having studied and evaluated all the particulars, evidence and precedents against the “supreme Law of the Land,” — there’s no reason why general principles of understanding should be off-limits. Such hearings are supposed to be, among other things, high-level employment interviews, not pre-coronation ceremonies. [More]
This is too important to just rubber-stamp a pig in a poke. Past statements and actions not supportive of the president's RKBA promises should be automatic disqualifiers.
1 comment:
So THIS is what you were working on yesterday? A required read.
You ask:
"What did the Founders mean by “A well regulated militia”? What did the Founder mean by “being necessary to the security of a free State and “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” and “shall not be infringed”? How can past Supreme Court opinion specifying protected arms as those being “in common use at the time” not apply to the types of firearms needed for militia service?"
For me, it is not just what did they mean - but why they choose the words they did?
That is important, too.
Post a Comment