And then there were two for USSC

Both of those are solid picks with a past pro-Second Amendment view and who were confirmed to their appellate seats unanimously by a Democratic Senate, so it will be hard to now argue they are some kind of right-wing nutjobs.

Gorusch also is rated "unanimously well qualified" by the ABA. My only gripe with him is I think a SCOTUS comprised entirely of Harvard and Yale grads is completely out of touch with the rest of America. But that is a minor gripe, and its not like Hardiman, who is a Georgetown grad is going to dilute that monoculture much.

I think Gorusch will be easier to confirm; though of course all the past accolades by ABA and non-opposition by a Democratic Senate will be memory-holed if either candidate is nominated.

ETA: Hardiman wrote the dissent in this opinion where he argues that New Jerset's "justifiable need" requirement for a concealed carry permit violates even intermediate scrutiny (if that's too much legalese for you, suffice it to say that view would be a major shift in the right direction on the Second Amendment):
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1640513.html
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the update BR.

"....confirmed to their appellate seats unanimously by a Democratic Senate, so it will be hard to now argue they are some kind of right-wing nutjobs."

Oh, they'll argue. Not that it'll do any good since they're outnumbered.
 
I think it's down to one. Trump tweeted that he has made his selection.

And Aguila Blanca, I hope her Honor retires both immediately and with such grace that Breyer is deeply moved, and retires with her :)
 
Of Hardiman, WaPo writes:
Washington Post said:
But liberal groups oppose Hardiman as a Supreme Court choice, highlighting his opinions that have protected gun owners and limited the ability of citizens to hold police accountable. In Second Amendment cases, he has adopted a view more expansive than what the Supreme Court has so far endorsed.
Click to expand...

I like the sound of that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...9ec4b3d09ba_story.html?utm_term=.b0de575cadab

On the other hand, Gorsuch is described on some web sites as very "Scalia-like". That sounds easier to get approved. I.e. put the court back the way it was.

Bartholomew Roberts, I looked at your link, but I am having trouble determining who wrote what parts of the opinion. Can you help me out?
 
If a candidate is opposed because of a gun rights stand - that is a good thing.

I wonder if it would predict the candidate (annoyed at the opposition) would be even more proactive.

However, even with Thomas and a progun candidate, the other 'conservatives' haven't really risen to the challenge after the two decisions (Heller and McD).
 
Yes, that link is awkwardly organized. The first paragraph after "VII" is the end of the majority opinion and the first paragraph before "I" is the beginning of the dissent Hardiman wrote.

There has been some speculation Hardiman is the actual nominee and Gorusch is a signal to Kennedy that if he steps down now, Gorusch (Kennedy's former clerk) will replace him. Not sure how valid that is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top