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.
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.
***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.
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.