Our situation gets “curiouser and curiouser”.
USA TODAY wants us to know that the current supreme court nominee is “pro gun”. You should be able to read their condemnation here.
Evidently the justice heard a case in 2012 where a convicted felon was accused of violating the terms of an earlier guilty plea that banned him from possessing firearms.
The justice agreed that the lower court had interpreted prior rulings correctly and refused to reverse the conviction.
He voted to affirm the conviction thus sending the felon to jail for possession of a firearm.
How does that make the justice “pro gun”? Well, he wrote in his opinion that he personally thought that the government had not been held to the congressionally specified burden of proof. However he felt it was his duty to uphold prior circuit court rulings.
It seems that we have a justice that had a personal opinion that was different from what prior courts had ruled. He felt it was his duty to follow the decisions of prior majorities.
In our book that makes him a justice that enforces the law instead of making up his own.
Isn’t that what we want from our supreme court?
And since when has being “pro gun” bad? Don’t we have a second amendment?
We deserve better