What Does a Justice Barrett Give Us?

Perhaps the most high-profile opinion Barrett has written is a dissent in Kanter v. Barr, a case that upheld a Wisconsin law taking gun rights away from non-violent felons. The majority opinion was written by Judges Joel Flaum and Kenneth Ripple, who were appointed by President Ronald Reagan.

“History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns,” Barrett wrote. “But that power extends only to people who are dangerous .”

She added: “[W]hile both Wisconsin and the United States have an unquestionably strong interest in protecting the public from gun violence, they have failed to show, by either logic or data … that disarming Kanter substantially advances that interest. On this record, holding that the ban is constitutional as applied to Kanter does not ‘put the government through its paces’ … but instead treats the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’”

Severino lauded the dissent as “bold” and said preserving rights for felons, especially nonviolent ones like the individual at issue in Kanter v. Barr, is something that both sides should be able to get behind.

The first stance in the article on the most important topic.

Not as strong as I would like, but not as bad as a paranoid hoplophobe.


I am all for her protecting the second amendment.

Yes. :smiley:

Wow…I like. It goes to what we been saying here.

1 Like

@conan I moved you over.

1 Like

What does a Justice Barrett give us? If we’re being brutally honest, probably about two to three months of riots after she’s confirmed.

1 Like

The government has failed to prove it’s case whether gun owners are a threat even from non violent felonies.

And that’s one of tactic that left does…charge people with felonies so they can’t buy a gun legally.


I really hope that the statute gets struck down. If a felon gets the right to vote back why not all the rights.

But may be possibly on a case by case basis. No idea how it would work. May be crimes qualified as violent. This creates problems too because a lot of violent crimes has low recidivism rate like murder for example. It’s a difficult issue. But st the end of day i am for complete repeal of the statute.


lets hope it gives us someone who respects and appreciates and upholds the voting process.

I am not disagreeing, I would need to see the recidivism rate for murderers to other types of violent crime first. For example.

Under no circumstances should we Dems work this women over in the hearings. We lost. She’s in. This is what happens when we run weak candidates. I wish her luck.


I had a similar sentiment when Romney lost.

It was said a ham sandwich could have beaten Obama… so the Rs ran a soup sandwich instead.


If you are too dangerous to own a gun, you belong in prison. For the simple reason, guns are far from the only way to kill people and are also ridiculously easy to obtain illegally.

That if is the most difficult question to answer like ever.

Aside from a real woman on the bench? A better judge. :man_shrugging:


That was really uncalled for.

Have to admit, reading up oh her cases she’s interesting woman. And to be honest I’m not sure liberals should fear her. :wink:

1 Like

If confirmed, she will ensure DEMs pack the SCOTUS once they gain control - which is looking more likely.

To paraphrase Fred Thompson in “The Hunt for Red October”,
“Dem’s don’t take a dump without a plan son”

I wonder what the impetus for this legislation is?

What is the deal with having SCOTUS be full for a national election? SCOTUS has no role in that. Bush v. Gore was extraconstitutional as they themselves noted in their decision and also noted their decision couldn’t be used as a precedent.