Nowhere in the constitution does it say that a president must replace a conservative judge with a conservative or a liberal with a liberal. The only check is that congress most confirm whoever the president nominates, and at the moment the Democrats control both houses.
Yes they control both houses and so what? So your back to assuming that they would do that. You are completely disreguarding the fact that it is in nobodies best interest to do that. Democrats would lose all their gained power by 2010 if they decided to abuse their power. You seem to believe that the democrats are power hungry ratts that want to take away all rights and make the US one large prison.
So he was liberal as a senator, but now he'll be moderate as a president? Do you think he's going to change his political stance just because he has a new job?
Again completly ignoring the fact that he it setting up a administration full of people from the major parties. So yes I truely believe he will be left but moderate.
I don't know how many more ways I can explain this. The Supreme Court enterprets the constitution. If the Supreme Court says there is no individual right to keep and bear arms, then there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. And if there is no individual right to keep and bear arms, then congress doesn't need a new Amendment to ban some, most or all guns.
Explain to me how the supreme court could possibly interpret the second amendment as saying that no person can own a gun? 2nd Amendment A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
. Also the supreme court cannot just pull this topic out of their ass and legislate it, it has to be presented to them as a court case or created by the legislature. Like I said before their would not be nearly enough support for this bill by senate and the house. All of congress's democrats would have to be hardcore liberals for even a flicker of hope of the bill being created. Then we are on to interpretation, how can the court clearly justify that it doesn't go against the constitution?
Also, the Anti-federalists wrote fairly extensively about the threat posed by the a tyrany of the majority. Look it up.
Antifederalists have been gone for 200+ years and what they wanted was their rights guaranteed on paper. Guess what, they got them.