Seeing Who Backs Biden’s SCOTUS Pick Tells You All That You Need To Know

6
900

If you’re like most Americans, you had a pretty good idea of the type of person that Joe Biden was going to appoint to replace current Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer once he retires later this year. Depending on your political viewpoints, you may have thought this was a good thing, or you may have thought that it was a bad thing. Either way, you didn’t have any doubts about the positions that Biden’s appointee would take on a number of issues. Including guns.

But if you’re one of the few people who had any question about the viewpoints of Biden’s Supreme Court nominee (at least on the issue of guns and gun control), then, one piece of information will settle that question for you one and for all. That issue is gun control groups thoughts on that judge. Stephen Gutowski writes,

President Joe Biden’s (D.) pick to become the next Supreme Court justice is finding support among gun-control advocates.

All of the major gun-control groups praised the choice of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace retiring Associate Justice Stephen Breyer. The groups argued that while Jackson has no history of ruling on Second Amendment cases during her time on the D.C. Court of Appeals, they believe she aligns with their views on gun law constitutionality.

In spite of this clearly wrong choice (speaking as someone who completely opposes gun control), there is some good news. Again, from Gutowski:

Advertisement

Jackson’s appointment is unlikely to change the ideological makeup of the court unless she significantly departs from Biden’s restrained view of the Second Amendment. The Court has 6 conservatives who are generally supportive of expanding protections recognized under the Second Amendment while the 3 liberals are generally opposed to the idea. If confirmed, Jackson will replace Stephen Breyer who has been an opponent of expanding Second Amendment protections.

In other words, if this anti-gun judge gets on the Supreme Court, she still may not be able to infringe our gun rights.

But that doesn’t mean that we don’t need to stay vigilant. A second or a third justice like Jackson (assuming that she makes it to the court), could put our gun rights in jeopardy, and that’s something that we don’t want taken from us, our children, and our grandchildren.

Advertisement

6 COMMENTS

  1. Rather than worrying about who gets into the Supreme Court, whether it is by a racist reason or not, I prefer to worry about who gets into Congress. If Congress is made up of intelligent members who actually care about the People and the Constitution, they can easily come up with laws that will override any dubious decisions made by the Court. The new laws would only be considered not applicable if the Court could prove they are unconstitutional. Since many in Congress are also lawyers, they could word the bills so that the Court could not just declare them invalid, no matter the makeup of the Court.

    • You better worry about both the Supreme Court can nullify an UN-CONSTITUTIONAQL LAW that congress passes …

  2. It remains ridiculous to me that not one news source is questioning the retirement of Justice Breyer who didn’t know he retired until he read about it!

    As far as Judge Jackson goes, her history of legislating from the bench disqualifies her for a position on the bench of the SCOTUS. Beyond knowledge and experience, in fact more important than those, a SCOTUS must have the moral strength to follow the Constitutional requirement to uphold the Constitution as written. There is no latitude for a Justice to make rulings based on either modern interpretation or personal ideals. The Constitution is a living document with rules to ammend it. A Justice must interpret the Constitution as written. A Justice can always write an opinion after the Courts decision and there support a legal Ammendment that could in the future alter the decision of the Court, but a Justice breaks his vows to attempt to write an Ammendment from the bench. The thought of doing such is an insult to the Constitution even though there are many examples of where this has been done. Unless a candidate can show through experience that he or she has the moral streng to adhere to the Constitution when making decisions the candidate can not be confirmed. Jackson has shown over and over that she does not have the moral strength required of a SCOTUS Justice and thus can not be confirmed.

  3. Is she really going to disarm law abiding blacks so they will not be able to defend themselves , after the NRA put so much in overturning those Jim Crow laws …

  4. If anyone has a knowledge of history. Well banishing guns from the citizen has only given tose to fascism. Socialism. Maoism and communism
    But for 60 years History has not been taught to the uneducated dummied down American voters Go figure

Comments are closed.