However, the 2nd Amendment-as such-is pretty much nonexistent where I happen to reside, i.e. Kings County, New York.
And to be perfectly honest, there's nothing much that Miers-or anyone else on the Supreme Court, no matter how opposed they are to the notion of bearing arms being a collective right-could or will do to change that.
If the 2nd Amendment is under assault, I'd much prefer that we do battle in state legislatures-and in public opinion-than to leave this decision to unelected judges, no matter how favorably they may be predisposed to our cause.
Seeing as how Bork is the antithesis of an activist judge-and most likely looks no more favorably upon spurious liability lawsuits filed against gun manufacturers than he does on those launched against cigarette makers-I would much rather put my trust and faith in him than in an unknown quantity, however good she may be on one particularly vital aspect of the Bill of Rights.
Maybe so. But also maybe no. It would depend on if the right case came before the court.
They had one recently that could have been good but they hung it on the wrong peg, inter-state commerce clause rather then second amendment.
My problem with Bork is the way he reasoned himself into it.
He "Couldn't imagine" so it couldn't say what it clearly said.
This is exactly the kind of man who would find penumbras and all sorts of things if allowed to do so. Bork would have been better then Souter but based on his writing I think we would have been very disappointed in him.
I have also found that 2A absolutists tend to be conservative right down the line. If you have the guts to hew to a conservative interpretation of the most reviled section of the Bill of Rights, you usually have the guts to stick with almost anything. I was very suspicious of Bork because of his collectivist view.
. . . and that seems to be a major problem. Souter's record, for example, was quite conservative until he apparently got his head turned.