Posted on 06/28/2008 6:19:04 AM PDT by RightSideNews
Thanks to the flappable Justice Anthony Kennedy the Second Amendment remains in the constitution but it is outrageous that four members of the court wanted to throw it out. (see Scalias Opinion)
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a precisely clear opinion upholding the right of the people to keep and bear arms on an individual basis. But the ink wasn’t dry before leftists of all stripes "found" language in the opinion that will allow other judges to confirm all manner of restrictions on gun owners’ rights. Unfortunately Scalia probably had to include some of these loop holes in the opinion to placate Justice Kennedy so he would join the majority of five.
But how perilous is our freedom when a population of 300 million Americans is at the mercy of nine unelected people in black robes? This is reminiscent of some "sci fy" dramas where one or a small group governs a planet of sheep-like beings............."The crime was the brutal rape of an 8 year old girl and a court in the state of Louisiana sentenced the criminal to death in accordance with state law. Kennedy and the four liberal judges said the death penalty in this case was "cruel and unusual" punishment in violation of the Eight Amendment; however what Kennedy and his gang of four failed to consider is that to be unconstitutional the punishment must be "cruel AND unusual" to be prohibited.
The death penalty for crimes involving no death has been applied for centuries; for example..."
(Excerpt) Read more at rightsidenews.com ...
As we all know one of the purposes of the 2A is so the citizens can protect themselves from a rogue government. Given the outcry regarding this SC decision, we may have to do that sooner rather than later.
to placate Justice Kennedy
Like the eminent domain case, the rape case made no sense whatsoever in a civilized society governed by the US Constitution. The supremes continue to defy fate, no doubt. Kennedy in the 2A case was simply 'covering his own back', since he like Ginsberg is probably always packing heat under his robe. Ginsberg simply is too far gone with the liberal disease to see that! Kennedy will continue to shove human rights, and other Non-US trivialities down our throats, til he's gone.
“nine unelected people”
But they are put in place by people we elect! That alone shows how important one’s votes are. I found this paragraph to be most interesting:
“Justice Kennedy said there was a national consensus against applying capital punishment for the crime (for which no statistical basis was cited); as if the matter of constitutionality was to be judged according to national polls – how ridiculous it is to use assumed, or even real, public opinion polls as a basis for applying constitutional law to a matter before the court. If public opinion is for a change, the constitution provides the ground rules for its amendment and it does not say the U.S. Supreme Court is the remedy.”
How will Justice Kennedy rule when the national consensus
is that Bin Ladin be hanged, what rights will they find for HIM.
It only takes five of those nine.
If I were the father of a child as young, I can honestly say that the rapist would never have lived long enough to even file one appeal.
Also, if one follows the careers of the high and mighty, one would say that the present crew of five have trumped the plan of FDR to stack the court back in the late thirties or early fourties.
I object, as a citizen of this great country to allow any of the three branches of our government to usurp power over the other two.
For this I am willing to take up arms as did our American Revolutionary forebearers to break the back of British rule.
"So rather than using its actual words to govern the high courts decision making, according to Justice Kennedy and friends the constitution may be judicially rewritten by as few as five people in black robes who are supposed to be its guardian..."
Vote people, support McCain. He may not be the most conservative. But allowing Obama to win for childish reasons that I do not like the Republican candidate has severe repercussion on the Supreme Ct, where the judges are not for 4 years but for life.
“nine unelected people”
But they are put in place by people we elect! That alone shows how important one’s votes are.
*********************************************************
That is one huge problem ,,, we are so far removed from the electoral process to be able to effect it to our (and the founders) philosophy... The Senate confirms SC appointees and should logically be the branch of conservative power as the Senate was originally full of appointees from the various state legislators and they had a vested interest in maintaining their states power base and keeping the federal gov’t within it’s appointed boundaries.
We need to repeal the 17th ammendment... Many people point to womens suffrage as the turning point where the U.S. went soft and liberal ,,, I believe stripping away the states appointed representatives was a much bigger blow. In the past we had much more access to our state reps in our state govt’s and could count on them to appoint representatives to the US Senate that really stood for what the states wanted without the silly “beauty contest” elections we now have where moderation/RINO’s rule as the RNC is full of idiots.
***Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a precisely clear opinion upholding the right of the people to keep and bear arms on an individual basis. But the ink wasn’t dry before leftists of all stripes “found” language in the opinion that will allow other judges to confirm all manner of restrictions on gun owners’ rights. ***
Reminds me of the good old days in 1962 when all “they” wanted to do was register handguns.
Then they demanded registration of all guns.
Then they demanded a ban on “sturday night specials”.
Then they demanded a ban on all handguns, claiming that the “Miller” decision gave no right to own handguns. The tv shows were full of this crap in 1971-1978.
Then they discovered “assault rifles”...
Now, we have a SUPREME COURT decision that clears this chaff away.
Now, I believe I am able to protect my family with the tools best for me, not what some politician says I can use.
Oh, wait! They are already trying to tell us what we can and can’t use to protect our homes.
The rapist of my child would not be executed because he did not commit murder. Yet, if I were to kill him for what he had done to my child, I could be executed.
Isn't justice great? /s
Excellent comment by Alito, it goes to the heart of the problem with many 20th and 21st century SCOTUS decisions, including the one that invalidated the LA death penalty law. The proper role of the SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution according to the intent of it's authors and apply that intent to the matter at hand, not to interpret according to the whims of the majority of the people at any given time or to the personal opinion of the individual Justices regarding the issue in question.
For example, the 4 liberal Justices on the current court apparently believe that the 2nd Amendment is outmoded and dangerous in our modern society, and mistakenly believe that they are authorized to judicially correct that situation by nullifying the amendment for all practical purposes. Nothing could be further from the original intent of the authors. They meant for the Constitution to be followed to the letter by the Judiciary which they created as the third of 3 coequal branches of government, and that their original intent could only be modified or repealed through the amendment process which they designed and made a part of the Constitution itself.
But contrary to the original intent of the authors, almost every SCOTUS of the last 100+ years has improperly taken upon itself authority to allow the emotionally derived feelings and biases of the Justices to "interpret" the Constitution, when in fact it is not that difficult to determine the true intent of the authors for virtually every clause of their document if the Justice is inclined to do so. If changes in modern American society's rapidly evolving standard of ethics and concepts of justice require amending the Constitution the only way to legitimately do that is prescribed in Article 5, and that Article doesn't authorize amending by judicial fiat as some judges and Justices seem to think it does.
On the present court it only takes one, namely Kennedy. He holds more power on the Court than Chief Justice Roberts because of his position as the swing vote on almost every case that comes before the Court.
If Kennedy dies or is removed from the Court for some reason while Obama is in the Oval Office every constitutional right that we now enjoy will be in very serious jeopardy.
“If Kennedy dies or is removed from the Court for some reason while Obama is in the Oval Office every constitutional right that we now enjoy will be in very serious jeopardy.”
You couldn’t be more right.
5 to 4 decision - that’s awfully close - razor close.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.