.
I read somewhere that she would not be ruling on this case if it is agreed to be ruled on.



Is this true?




And if so, could it actually be bad?



Some say that since she is anti-2nd Amendment and is replacing an anti-2nd Amendment judge, it's a wash.


However, what if she decided to rule in favor of Incorporation and the 2nd Amendment?


Then she would be an extra vote that we could surely use. Many times a SCOTUS judge has not ruled the way some thought they would.

.

You certainly are right in your assertion that judges aren't 100 % predictable. However, once they show a pattern on an issue, they tend to stick with it. Sotomyor will rule in such a manner as to restrict/reduce/eliminate/challenge firearms ownership and/or use at every possible turn. Any ruling she's involved in that has anything to do with guns will (in her head) be more about guns than law.

The appointment of Sotomyor will not change anything on the court as she will be a reliable liberal vote replacing a reliable liberal, David Hackett Souter.

Any ruling on incorporation will come down to a 5 to 4 decision. Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens and Sotomyor will vote against. Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas will vote for and Justice Kennedy will be the wild card.

Basically there are three cases on the docket - Maloney v. Rice, National Rifle Association v. Chicago and McDonald v. Chicago. Sotomayor has already ruled (the wrong way) on Maloney v Rice, when she was a justice on the Second District Circuit Court. So she is required to exclude herself on that case. The other cases essentially boil down to the same thing, but she's not required to exclude herself from those.

So it's likely she would vote against us, since she's already ruled as such on a similar case. But she replaces a liberal judge who would have already voted that way so no surprise.