Supreme Court rules 5-4 for gun rights.

Update: Opinion here.

Bill,

Wait ‘til you read Breyer’s convoluted reasoning that statistics that “prove” gun bans are needed are acceptable while statistics that show that bans don’t prevent crime are NOT acceptable.

My favorite line so far? (Scalia’s opinion, page 6, footnote 5):

And JUSTICE STEVENS is dead wrong to think that the right to petition is “primarily collective in nature.“

heh

OMG!  I actually agree with Obama on something.

http://tinyurl.com/5nw3tx

Obama described his pre decision support for the DC ban as “inartful”.

Good lord….how long are the pet people gonna continue drinking from this twerps toilet?

Obama sez:

“"I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but…“

Yep.  There’s that “<comma> BUT”. 

“But I also believe the government can trump and negate that right if those in power feel it’s necessary to make people *feel* safer and think we’re actually doing something about crime.“

Obama will do what he can to hollow out today’s ruling.

Agree that moderate and conservative concepts should not apply to the SCOTUS, just don’t see it working out that way.  When these people get appointed they (may) bring all their baggage and agenda along with them.

That’s how it works ?

Sure, sure, there are brilliant judicial arguments, even from dissenters, to justify a predetermined conclusion, ex post facto.

I’m not crazy about latin or acronyms.

SCOTUS sounds like:

1) a Star Trek character known for his dilithium crystals;

2) Mel Gibson invading England onscreen or in reality;

3) a portion of Clarence Thomas’ anatomy Anita Hill may have one time referenced in passing;

4) SCOTUS Act of 1959 regulating the usage of diphenyl ethers in closed environments with ventilation systems.

If you sound it out, sounds like:

1) the last and final appeal for female Motown artists.

But can they sing R&B;?

The candidaates react!

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/2008/06/scotus_rules_for_guns.html

I never knew Obama Mugabe was such a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Maybe the Obama who was all for gun control then isn’t the same Obama that Obama knows today….or knew then…or whatever.

A new era of Hope and Change!

Bill,

Am I to assume that you also expect referees to be impartial…to not favor one team, apply penalties selectively and actually stick to the rule book and not make it up as they go along?

You’re just stupid. That’s all I can say. How can we build Utopia with ideas like that?

Note that the same 4 lefties who voted to abolish the Second Amendment are also the same who voted to allow local gov’ts to steal peoples property so the beloved gov’t can rake in more dough to build bigger monuments to themselves with.

Not that I give a (VERY salty) what the SCOTUS says. I’m not giving up my guns to anyone and if anyone tries to take them…I will do my best to kill them.

Sieze their land, take their weapons….this is like a Mel Gibson movie with not so good looking characters.

Ed,

I tried my best to stop O’Conner from retiring….I even beat on her good with my Stick of Rovian Justice but, she just wouldn’t listen.

Somebody needs to take a stick to Kenedy’s asfault.

“moderates like O’Connor.“ 

The concept of “conservative,“ “liberal,“ “moderate,“ etc. really should have no place in referring to people who are supposed to be JURISTS.  The role of the judiciary, especially at the appelate levels, is to read what the law says and interpret the law - not to formulate social policy or to announce what the law SHOULD be. 

I don’t know about any “far right-wingers” being appointed to the court.  I do know that Scalia adheres to the text and original meaning of the Constitution - i.e., read what it says and what the people who were around at the time understood it to mean, rather than trying to figure out what neat new and progressively useful meanings we can squeeze into the words or wring out of them.  Meanwhile, Breyer has authored a book endorsing and encouraging judicial activism and has stated in public speaking engagements the same theme - that he believes the role of a judge is to encourage the public to actively engage in the policy debates and political process.  Thereby demonstrating that he is wholly unsuitable for being a SCOTUS justice, due to his complete lack of understanding of what the judiciary is for.  Seems to me he’s confused as to the distinction between the legislature and the judiciary.

As I said, I have yet to read the whole opinion and dissents, but based on reading the transcripts of the oral arguments and some other comments, my understanding is that the “far left wingers” on the court agree that the 2A protects some kind of individual right, but that localities can override that right when they deem it necessary to deal with local conditions.  I can’t remember which one it was - I think it was Souter - asked during oral arguments whether it would be OK for a city to ban handguns because it found itself faced with lots of crimes committed with handguns.  The obvious answer is NO it cannot.  Can you imagine if they treated the First Amendment the same way?

“Because of increasingly violent confrontations based on religious beliefs, including attacks on abortion clinics by fundamentalist Christians and attacks on mosques by anti-Islamic groups, the city finds it necessary to ban all churches.“
That is the analog of their reasoning as to why the D.C. gun ban is constitutional.  Further confirmation that too many opinions are based not on intellectual honesty and integrity or adherence to historical precedent, but ideology of the judges.

Oh yeah, and the death penalty for child rapists case - I have downloaded and printed that one out as well.  Based on what I heard from Nina Totenberg last night on NPR on my way home, they got that one wrong as well.  Hell yes the death penalty is appropriate when some scumbag forcibly rapes his 8-year old stepdaughter.

Bill,

“Can there be any doubt that ideology trumps intellectual honesty and adherence to clear historical precedent, when you have four justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who dissent from such a ruling?“

Agree completely. The problem is I blame you guys. I think loading the court with extreme rightwingers and letting moderates like O’Connor retire without replacement set the stage for a hyper-political polarized court.

Polarization is usually used as a generic term but it has a political definition and even a scientfic definition in social psychology:

(from encyclopedia.com)

group polarization n. The tendency for involvement in a group to cause the attitudes and opinions of the group members to become more extreme, in the direction of the predominant attitudes and opinions in the group. The phenomenon is explained by collective involvement and group participation making salient the group norms (1), amplifying normative individual attitudes and opinions and causing them to shift even further in the direction of the group norms. The concept was introduced in 1969 by the Romanian-born French social psychologist Serge Moscovici (born 1920) and the Italian-born Canadian social psychologist Marisa Zavalloni (born 1929), who provided evidence, for example, that the generally favourable attitudes of French students towards de Gaulle became even more positive, on average, and their generally hostile attitudes towards Americans became even more hostile, following group discussion.

In simple direct terms, my guess is the court “hates” each other now, much more than ever before.

If you look at the other rulings, seems like more of the same.

The libs ganged up on the cons to set back capital punishment.  For baby rapers. The experts say they aren’t even certain how much the states are concerned about this issue.

All of a sudden an issue that might not be of paramount relevance (or it might) suddenly becomes a big issue because it relates to a social and political issue (capital punishment) in some minor (or major) extent and the court ain’t playin’ well together, kinda like you and me.

Polarization.

Maybe the baby raper issue is important after all. Don’t mean to argue that one way or the other. Just saying the ruling is polarized, and this is a phenomenon well observed and catalogued to social psychology.

Have not looked at the Exxon ruling, but would not be the least surprised if it is split along ideological lines too.

“Reason”? 

There is no reason for it to be a 5-4 decision.  Can there be any doubt that ideology trumps intellectual honesty and adherence to clear historical precedent, when you have four justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who dissent from such a ruling?

Maybe I shouldn’t say more until I have time to read the entire thing, including their dissents.  But it is very telling that the most liberal left wing of the court dissented from a ruling that says what is clearly correct: that the Second Amendment indeed protects and individual right to own firearms, and a law that prevents legal ownership of an operational sidearm in the private home clearly and unconstitutionally infringes on that right. 

Can you imagine if they treated the First Amendment the same way? 

I’m sure I’ll have more to say once I read the whole bloody thing.

Post Your Comments: