On the recordAugust 5, 2010
It is a troubling statement. I think, clearly, it allows her to justify voting--if confirmed to the Supreme Court--to eviscerate the second amendment. There are some earlier cases before the 14th amendment was even passed, or before the first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights, were applied to the States in any systematic way that you could rely on as precedent, which could indeed trump, in her words, the original intent of the Constitution. What did the people ratify? They ratified the Constitution that, in fact, just before the Founders signed it, they said ``we do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States''--not some other judicial opinion 100 years later. I think it raises troubling questions about where she stands on that. In the light of Heller and McDonald, which were razor-thin 5-to-4 decisions, made within the last 2\1/2\ years, we have to acknowledge that the Supreme Court is not, with clarity, committed to the plain application of the second amendment.
