Replies

Here’s what Feinstein said about Kavanaugh during his September 4th confirmation hearing in regards to his dissent against an assault weapons ban in D.C.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4747266/user-clip-feinstein-opening-remarks

[Formatting by C-SPAN—not me.]

“EXTRAORDINARILY IMPORTANT. NEXT, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE PRESIDENT’S PROMISE TO REPORT A NOMINEE BLESSED BY THE NRA. IN REVIEWING YOUR JUDICIAL OPINIONS IN DOCUMENTS, IT IS PRETTY CLEAR THAT YOUR VIEWS GO WELL BEYOND SIMPLY BEING PRO-GUN. I WOULD LIKE TO STRAIGHTEN THAT OUT. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT DURING A LECTURE AT NOTRE DAME LAW SCHOOL COMING YOU SAID YOU WOULD BE “THE FIRST TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT MOST OTHER LOWER JUDGES HAVE DISAGREED WITH YOUR VIEWS ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT.” IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V HELLER, YOU WROTE THAT UNLESS GUNS ARE REGULATED EITHER AT THE TIME OF THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN OR TRADITIONALLY THROUGHOUT HISTORY, THEY CANNOT BE REGULATED NOW. IN YOUR OWN WORDS, THEN LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNLESS THEY ARE “TRADITIONAL OR COMMON” IN THE UNITED STATES. YOU CONCLUDED THAT BANNING ASSAULT WEAPONS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT HISTORICALLY BEEN BANNED. THIS LOGIC MEANS THAT EVEN AS WEAPONS BECOME MORE ADVANCED AND MORE DANGEROUS, THEY CANNOT BE REGULATED. JUDGE EASTERBROOK, A CONSERVATIVE JUDGE FROM THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT CONCLUDED THAT THAT REASONING WAS ABSURD AND HE POINTED OUT THAT A LAW’S EXISTENCE CANNOT BE THE SOURCE OF ITS OWN CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY. IN FACT, I AM LEFT WITH THE FACT THAT YOUR REASONING IS FAR OUTSIDE THE MAINSTREAM OF LEGAL THOUGHT, AND THAT IT SURPASSES THE VIEWS OF JUSTICE SCALIA, WHO WAS CLEARLY A PRO-GUN JUSTICE. EVEN SCALIA UNDERSTOOD THAT WEAPONS LIKE M-16 RIFLES OR WEAPONS THAT ARE MOST USEFUL IN MILITARY SERVICE CAN IN FACT BE REGULATED.”