Posted on 06/26/2008 8:21:35 AM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
It took 32 years to overturn.
Ugh.
Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, is he?
The linguistic contortion they go through never ceases to amaze me.
Sorry, J.P.........5-4...Settled Law...Just like Roe v Wade.
Not soon enough is the answer.
Nope. And Scalia just DESTROYS him and Breyer in the majority opinion. It’s pretty much the judicial equivalent of Cassius Clay standing over a knocked-out Sonny Liston, fist cocked.
}:-)4
Oh, Stevens isn’t dumb,
this is just an example of knowing what the meaning is, disagreeing with it,
and attempting to justify it with some contortion of logic.
He, after all, being a liberal, is wiser than the founders, wiser than anyone that ever lived, and wiser than God Himself (liberals reject biblical authority).
He has the right and obligation to impose this wisdom on the rest of us.
It's no wonder that Stevens hands down some of the most ultra-liberal comments, especially in the past 20 years!
“Collective rights” are all that’s guaranteed by the Constitution?
The Soviet Constitution “guaranteed” more rights to its citizens than ours. However, it was interpreted that those rights took second place against the “needs” of the “people,” meaning the State.
Based on that interpretation, the Soviet constitution’s “guarantees” were meaningless. We all saw how “collective rights” worked there, with millions dispatched to the Gulag.
Stevens is an out-and-out Soviet communist.
“Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, is he?” Agree, but again, what liberal is?
Justice Stephens: There you go again, twisting them words around.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0
I have always believed that the Constitution says what it means and means what it says. It was written so that ANY citizen/individual could understand it.
Their verbal contortions appall me.
Unless they are unborn, or 8 year olds that are raped.
When Rat Presidents appoint SCOTUS justices we all know what we're getting -- there are no surprises. But with GOP Presidents it's always a crapshoot. Some great (Scalia, Thomas), some disastrous (Souter, Stevens).
How any conlusion, other than unfettered rights of individuals being enumerated, can be reached is just amazing. And I am not a beknighted lawyer or lord soveriegn of the bench either.
The "progressives" will have a tizzy fit over this decision. This dissent by Stevens has long been their position. As on so many other issues, the court is finely balanced and the ability to appoint justices is exceptionally important. Obama's court appointments would be a disaster. At the very least, he could maintain the liberal contingent, at the worst, he could flip the court to a sure liberal bias.
senile
Obviously, Justice Stevens is not familiar with the first word of Amendment I - "Congress". The only right guaranteed to the people by Amendment I is protection from Congress. It is sad that Justice Stevens has been on the USSC for over a quarter century, yet still doesn't even understand the Bill of Rights.
btw, the argument that Stevens uses (i.e. the right to bear arms is extended to militias - not the people) is preposterous. Consider the converse where militias did not have the right to bear arms. It doesn't make sense.
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.