Bush May Tap Brown for Supreme Court

MSNBC, NEWSWEEK ^ | 2-9-2003 | Daniel Klaidman, Debra Rosenberg and Tamara Lipper

[sneakypete]

Does a state judge have the authority to strike down law on federal grounds?

I doubt it,but they DO have the authority to tell the feds to go urinate up a rope because they will not enforce that law in their state.

I thought they were bound by the state constitution, and that if an appeal were to be made on federal grounds, it would have to go to federal court.

I think you are probably right about this,but nothing prevents them from exercising "judicial nullification".

[Marysecretary]

Actually, people from CA have told me that there are parts of the state that are conservative. There's hope.

[AppyPappy]

You mean I can have a blooker? Cool!

[iconoclast]

But in the end, sources tell NEWSWEEK, White House officials rejected the idea (of Scalia for Chief Justice), concluding that the brilliant but pugnacious justice would not be a consensus builder—an important quality for a chief justice. “We discussed it seriously, but rejected it definitively,” says a source familiar with the process.

I sense the hand of the ubiquitous Karl Rove here. Rule nothing out.

It appears that this woman would be a superlative choice for the SC but I would not like to see her, or anyone else, elevated directly to Chief Justice. We have too often watched individuals "grow" after they get to DC, especially in the case of a lifetime appointment.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

There are many, many, factors in this issue, before anyone hangs this Judge to dry. A state law formed on assault weapons in 1989 (whether 'legal' or not --it is also 'illegal' to smoke cigarettes in a bar in Ca.) Ca. is full of leftist liberals that do as THEY please. And the 1994 federal law that like it or not, trumps all of this down the pike.

And you are surprised of this judges decision? Like it or not she had to uphold both fed and state law. It is now President Bushs' decision.

The federal law banning the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons, known as the federal assault weapons ban, was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. President Clinton signed it into law on September 13, 1994.

However, the assault weapons ban will expire ("sunset") in September 2004 unless Congress and President George W. Bush renew it.

California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York — have state assault weapons bans.

1989 California — The first assault weapon ban passed in the nation was the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapon Act, which banned the future sale of a specific list of assault weapons in California. This law was upheld as constitutional in federal court against an NRA challenge and the NRA did not appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The law also was upheld against several other state and federal legal challenges.

Assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds produced prior to September 13, 1994, were "grandfathered" in under the law and can still be possessed and sold.

The definition of an assault weapon is tightly drawn. Only semi-automatic guns with multiple assault weapon features are banned.

To alleviate concerns that hunting weapons somehow might be affected, the law provides specific protection to 670 types of hunting rifles and shotguns that are presently being manufactured.

[lepton]

Yep. Either Scalia or Thomas.

Thomas has the mind for it, but I'm not so sure he has the personality for it. He likes to sit back and listen, and press his intellect to analysis of what is said and the law, rather than to speak up. His rulings are generally quite elegant, but that's a different talent.

[iconoclast]

I still think they'll manage to do some kind of BORK

Oh, absolutely. The Dims despise a black conservative with ten times the intensity of any other.

[Dan from Michigan]

Thanks. I'll look at the link and read that there.

[lepton]

I do not believe the 14th was originally intended to make the Bill of Rights apply to the states.

The SCOTUS took some 20 years to begin to interpret the 14th in the current manner...so contemporarily, neither did they.

[TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!]

Does fed and state (Ca.) law stop gang members in the inner cities from shooting up anybody with 'any' gun?- No.

Does the fed law ban of assault weapons cease China or Russia or OBL wackos from importing assault weapons to each other or cease any gun or weapons entry into either of our coasts via COSCO (red China) shipping?- No.

Does either state or fed law assault weapons ban actually put a murdering thug actually in jail without parole for shooting up a family AK-47 style?- Dunno. Is this a stupid fed. law that Clinton passed to make himself look good? Yes.

Now back to this judge... she is tied between this mess under Clinton's guise of a federal law and leftist Ca. I am not going to judge her too harshly as she seems very resolute in all conservative issues.

[lepton]

The other case (ban) goes to the core of 2nd Amendment issues.

It was more over whether the law can be made so as a non-legislative body could make additions and alterations to the "law", even with permission from the legislature. Twas a "separation of powers" argument.

[lepton]

Of course the BOR was intended to apply to the states, why else was the 10th Amendment passed?

Respectfully, that's completely backwards.

[lepton]

Thomas Sowell wrote an article last year touting her as the national top choice for conservative hopes across the board. How's that for an endorsement?

For me, that's a heck of an endorsement.

[Kryptonite]

I'm not at all in favor of Bush nominating this jurist to the SCOTUS. NO WAY! Nobody from California these days - nobody - can be trusted with such high responsibilities.

My position all along is that Bush has no higher calling in his Presidency than to nominate someone of equal caliber to Scalia or Thomas, and this jurist doesn't fit the bill. The most prominent question is how could she go along with the rest of the California wackos and rule that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right, but only a right granted to state militias? With that legal underpinning, theoretically California or any other state could completely disarm the citizenry (ala the Taliban in Afghanistan).

I'm sorry, but that sort of grossly misconstrued "logic" doesn't sit well at all with me, and if Bush is so stupid as to nominate her, I won't support another thing he does. These nominations mean everything to the future of this country - judges have a far greater impact on the everyday lives of Americans than any politicians. People need to understand this, and hold Bush's feet to the fire to make certain that he doesn't pull another Souter, but more than that, to make certain that the next appointment isn't a wishy-washy conservative, but someone on par with Scalia and Thomas.

[Dan from Michigan]

So much for me liking her. Has anybody told this dimwit about a thing called the "US Constitution" or the "Bill of Rights"? No state has the legal or moral authority to restrict the rights RECOGONIZED AND GUARANTEED by the US Constitution.

The biggest thing I need to know here is if the lawyers for the gun rights side argued the 2nd amendment in their brief. If they didn't, then the judge probably can't use that in the ruling.

Look at post 176 and read the link there. I do like how she referenced Blackstone, Kopel, and Don Kates, and also alluded to government sanctioned murder. It also seems that the gun makers didn't try and fight it on 2nd amendment grounds, but only on 'equal protection', and Brown ruled on that.

I haven't decided on where I stood on this yet. I still need to do more research.

[RKV]

Respectfully, how so?

"A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:388, Papers 12:440

[lepton]

The framers could have had no conception of the massive scale on which government-sanctioned murder would be committed in the twentieth century, but they had a keen appreciation of the peril of being defenseless. That wariness is reflected in the Constitution. (Justice Janice Brown)

Wow! That's a powerful counterpoint to the argument that the Founders had no conception of assault rifles and machine-guns.

[RKV]

And it appears she sides with those who have determined that a non-legislative body can make additions or alterations to a law. At least that is my reading of allowing the addition of other weapons to the prohibited list without the passage of another law. I accept that this is commonly done elsewhere and is just as wrong then.

[RKV]

The founders used Letters of Marque which provided for private naval vessels with canons. Certainly more firepower than a machine gun.

[lepton]

In the long run what she wrote amounts to saying the county commissioners have the right to control public properties like private properties,and this tells you all you need to know about where she thinks the power should lie

To which ruling are you referring? In the one it sounds like you are referring to, she dissented.