[Arkinsaw]

Since you heard her speak, did she give any indication she would support the Second Amendment in the U.S. Bill of Rights?

This is actually a pretty weird debate. The complaint really seems to be that she is "too conservative" in regard to States Rights. In effect, she has not applied the 14th Amendment to this case and instead has let State law trump Federal.

I've heard the argument many times here on this forum that the 14th does not apply to the States when we are talking about other Civil Rights laws. We need to have some consistency. The 14th Amendment doesn't just apply to OUR favored Civil Rights. We can't pick and choose. Many here would cheer if she gave a ruling supporting a State ban on abortion and ignored the Federal position. Same thing, different issue.

I must admit that I am somewhat disappointed in her take on the case despite the fact that I like all of the other positions I've seen so far.

That being said, there are several opinions that Justice Scalia has given that I disagree with strongly on a Constitutional basis (seizure of property without trial for one) yet he is still my favorite Justice and I agree with the majority of his stances. I would not disqualify him because of these differences. I am not inclined to disqualify Justice Brown either at this point.

I think rdb3's complaint is the tendency to extrapolate her views on all subjects based on a case we disagree with and to disqualify her completely for it. If I were to apply that standard then I would be railing against Scalia for his goofy stand on property seizure and ignore everything else he stands for.

[Shooter 2.5]

Her strict interpretation of the law may be what we need.

I suppose that's what the hearings are for. We can't make an assessment right now no more than the politicians who are expected to keep an open mind before the hearings.

[rwfromkansas]

I do not believe the 14th was originally intended to make the Bill of Rights apply to the states. Therefore, if that is the reason for her decision, I have to agree wtih her. Frankly, if she gets in the court, such a position would make her rule in favor of school prayer etc...wow. She would be a goldmine! She does not appear to be anti-gun either, as she has conflicting rulings on teh subject....it depends on the authority in the case upon which she makes her rulings.

[sneakypete]

I've heard the argument many times here on this forum that the 14th does not apply to the States when we are talking about other Civil Rights laws.

The right to self-defense is NOT a Civil Right. It is a natural right that can not be legally regulated. No governement has the moral or legal standing to even try to regulate it. Granted,they have been doing this for decades now,but that doesn't make it legal or right.