Replies

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.

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?

9th Circuit (Circus) Court of Appeals...the Federal Court to which the California Supreme Court looks to for Federal matters.

If she isn't why the hack is Bush talking about her?? Will she wind up being another liberal sleeper like Souter??

If she really isn't pro-Second Amendment, the NRA should be getting on the horn to us to call Bush about this. This is a VERY important issue.

The entire Second Amendment issue may come to a head soon in the courts.