|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
SCOTUS hearings: What Judge Barrett’s addition to Supreme Court could mean
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In District of Columbia v. Heller, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a mentor of Judge Barrett, led the court’s decision preventing governments from issuing broad handgun bans or requirements that guns be kept unloaded and disassembled at home. During her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Judge Barrett declined to provide detailed information on her views of gun control despite direct questioning. In her dissent in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals case, Kanter v. Barr, however, Judge Barrett opined that states cannot restrict all felons from possessing guns, suggesting only dangerous felons can be deprived of their Second Amendment rights. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/17/2020)
|
"[T]he fundamental right to an abortion has been constitutionally enshrined since the Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973."
This view is fundamentally flawed.
The SCOTUS cannot 'ensrhine' rights in the Constitution that are not contained in its text.
Roe is 'ensrhined' in case law as precedent, not in the Constitution, and the Constitution delegates no authority to the Court to add amendments. |
|
|
