Posted on 06/30/2008 7:54:43 AM PDT by jim_trent
Revolutionary ideologies always look good until they prevail; then their latent seeds of destruction sprout and conflagrate. Such is the case with originalism, and Heller provides an opportunity to see this process in action. To see why, imagine that, to the surprise of everyone, Clarence Thomas retires from the court next year and President Obama replaces him with a moderately liberal lawyer whom I will call X. In X's first term, another Second Amendment case reaches the Supreme Court. X reads the majority and dissenting opinions of Heller and decides that Justice Stevens' dissent makes the better originalist case. He writes a new majority opinion that adopts Stevens' dissent and overturns Heller.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
Two problems with this: First, the dissent by Stevens doesn't attempt to make an originalist case at all and never could. Secondly, a liberal Obama appointee would not give a rat's ass about originalist cases for anything.
Many of these people have convinced themselves, against all reason, that McCain and Obama would nominate similar (if not identical) candidates for SCOTUS.
The one thing accurate in this Slate commentary. If Obama winds up in the White House, he WILL nominate Justices who will reverse the Heller case and destroy its logic.
Congressman Billybob
I don’t think it makes any difference. The politicians as well as the judges are scared to death of the Second Amendment. If by chance Heller was over turned and the political establishment attempted to confiscate fire arms from law abiding citizens the famous “Tree of Liberty” would certainly be refreshed. Us law abiding, former military, will always stand ready to fully defend the oath we were duly sworn.
Personally, I think the entire Supreme Court is going to implode. All they need is a few more decisions by activist Justices, and the court’s decisions will become meaningless. They will simply reflect the opinions of the Justices on the court at any given time, and have nothing to do with the law.
His claim that “originalism can not last” is based on the liberal falicy that there is no truth. Specifically he claims that the question: “did the framers intend an individual right in the 2nd Ammendment” is impossible to answer and that both sides are equally right.
This is simply not true, and the Heller case is worth reading (all 157 pages of it) just to really understand this.
So the ‘problem’ of what weight to give recent decisions in the face of originalism doesn’t exsit. There is no problem because the decision in Heller is in keeping with the Original meaning.
Words do mean things, not everything is edlessly grey, and fair minded people can agree on these things if they don’t walk into the case with their mind made up to support a specific unconstitutional policy.
It is the ‘living breathing’ crowd who will create a body of law full of oscillating teeter-totters, not the originalists.
The Stevens’ dissent was demonstrative of leftice jurisprudence style.
Determine what you want the social policy consequences to be, based on your agenda.
Twist your logic and analysis to fit the ruling that will accomplish these policies.
Stevens actually said that we have no individual rights that aren’t in the context of our membership in a group, including free speech.
First, he violates Stare Decisis which has been the liberal screaming mantra for the last 30 years. Second, he just started the second civil war.
The liberal Congress, still run by Nancy Pelosi quickly institute draconian gun control laws, including a stronger and more complete Assalt Weapons Ban, bans on almost all Semi-Automatic weapons, national registration and absurd taxes on ammo.
President Obama instructs the Attorney General to use all powers to enforce the starting Jan 1.
We have a winner!!!
That one act alone would be worth all the salary we could pay him, for it just might forestall another war in which all those who espouse destroying this country are driven out or disposed of in some other manner.
Semper Fi
An Old Man
The Slate article is, in a word...grotesque.
Many of the mccain brownnosers seem to think he can get any nomination through a majority democrat congress. They conveniently forget he likes working with them. If mclame reaches across the aisle, he touches a Republican.
Even if Resident Obama should nominate a flaming liberal and he/she then declares Heller overturned and the 2A not an individual right, the right we have to keep and bear arms remains intact. We don't need no steenking amendment.
The 2A was penned to remind us never to give up that right, and in the gravest extreme of liberal upheaval. we can and will defend that right as the Founders foresaw. They never wanted an entrenched nanny-state government that legislates away our basic freedoms. They reminded us that we may have to throw the bastards out from time to time. Water the tree.
You Obama lover! How dare you question the Almighty McLame! He is the savior of the FR pseudo-conservatives!
The article also makes a poor assumption. That is, that a conservative would leave the court in the next eight years. This would be far less likely than the liberals. Just look at their ages:
Roberts, 53
Stevens, 88
Scalia, 72
Kennedy, 71
Souter, 68
Thomas, 60
Ginsburg, 75
Breyer, 69
Alito, 58
Of these, Stevens is ancient and Ginsburg is in poor health for years. There was speculation that Stevens would even retire during the Clinton presidency.
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.