And, as long as someone else brought up guns and the court, lets look at some liberal judicial hinky-pinky
KOPEL: Sotomayor targets guns now - Washington Times
Re: McDonald v Chicago: Sotomayor's dissent contradicts confirmation testimony
-Why did Sotomayor lie about her position on the 2nd?The Breyer-Sotomayor-Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissent urged that Heller be overruled and declared, "In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense."
Contrast that with her Senate testimony: "I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller." And, "I understand how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans."
Yet her McDonald opinion shows her "understanding" that those many, many Americans are completely wrong to think they have a meaningful individual right.
To the Senate Judiciary Committee, Justice Sotomayor repeatedly averred that Heller is "settled law." The Associated Press reported that Sen. Mark Udall, Colorado Democrat, "said Sotomayor told him during a private meeting that she considers the 2008 ruling that struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban as settled law that would guide her decisions in future cases."
-What regard do you suppose Sotomayor will have for Heller and McDonald when the issue of the 2nd returns to the SCotUS?
And the big question...
-Will liberals consider a future court where Sotomayor is part of a majority that overturns these issues of "settled law" an example of Judicial Activism?