used that phrase and the next sentence talked about dangerous and unusual weapons. and the court in heller itself, the supreme court, struck down a d.c. ban on handguns. now, most handguns are semi automatic. that s something that not everyone appreciates. most handguns are semi automatic. and the question came before us of semi automatic rifles and the question was can you distinguish as a matter of precedent this is all about precedent for me trying to read exactly what the supreme court said. if you read the mcdonald case and i concluded that it could not be distinguished as a matter of law semi automatic rifles from semi automatic handguns and semi automatic rifles are widely possessed in the united states. there are millions and millions and millions of semi automatic rifles that are possessed. so that seemed to fit common
a pro bono religious freedom case, representing a jewish synagogue in maryland. they won the case. vindicating the right of the congregation to build a place of worship in their neighborhood. let me just begin with this, before i begin, judge, i d like to ask you to keep your answers concise as you can, so i can get to as many of them as time allows. some of my colleagues have suggested that president trump nominated you because he thought you d rule in his favor, should certain issues come before the court. suppose you had a case involving president trump or an issue near and dear to the president. what assurances can you provide that you will not allow the president s personal views on a case or personal interest to impact your decision? senator, i m an independent judge. for 12 years, i ve been deciding cases based on the law and the
states versus richard nixon. why have i brown versus board, by the way, the single greatest was it rightly decided? i have said that, yes, that the court s holding that a criminal trial subpoena to a president, in the context of the special counsel regulations in that case, for information, a criminal trial subpoena for information, under the specific regulations in that case, i have said that holding is one of the four greatest moments in supreme court history. not only i can explain how the misunderstanding came up. i know there was a news story about that. that s just not correct impression of my views. my views have been consistent. why was it one of the greatest moments? it was one of the greatest moments because of the political pressures of the time. the court stood up for judicial
common use. justice scalia s opinion used that phrase. i think the next sentence talked about dangerous and unusual weapons. the court in heller itself, the supreme court, struck down a d.c. ban on handguns. most handguns are semiautomatic. that s something that not everyone appreciates. most handguns are semiautomatic. the question came before us of semiautomatic rifles. the question was, can you distinguish as a matter of precedent again, this is all about precedent for me. trying to read exactly what the supreme court said. if you read the mcdonald case. i concluded it could not be distinguished as a matter of law. semiautomatic handguns from semiautomatic rifles. semiautomatic rifles are widely process
my office wrote the assault weapons legislation in 1993. it was law from 94 to 2004. it essentially prohibited the transfer, sale, and manufacture of assault weapons. it did not, at the time, affect possession. i happen to believe that it did work and that it was important. i have watched case after case, and i think i mentioned earlier, school shootings, which i never thought this would happen in our country, that someone would bring a semi-automatic assault weapon into a school and just mow down children and staff. so i ve been very interested in your thinking on assault weapons. you specifically argued that the