John / Billybob
Thanks Billybob. As I posted somewhere else: It is not the end or the beginning of the end; however, it is the end of the beginning.
bttt
Could not be any clearer or more accurate.
Ypu wrote and I quote, "the Court must follow the new law"
Then you expressed an opinion, "Exactly the same will, I think, apply to the Heller case in the years and decades to come.",
If you could please tell me how that can be? In the case under discussion, the Law was at all times set forth in the 2nd Amendment. Unless at some future date, the 2nd Amendment in repealed, where will the new law come from?
Semper Fi
An old Man
And, when looks back 30 to 40 years and assesses some of the decisions that the Court has made and the resultant affect and effect these decisions have had on our society, one wonders where the moral, common sense of these people resides.
One additionally wonders what motivates them and what benefit they are able to redeem for these decisions.
Inquiring minds want to know.
it’s a wonder that some dan rather hasn’t made the claim that the 2nd applies to arms, but not fingers, legs, feet, or ears. and the NYT cheers him on.
My friends could not understand why I was so euphoric when this decision came down on Thursday. They just couldn’t grasp the significance of this decision. I had to explain it to each and every one of them. As a true American, I don’t agree with the “media” that Obama getting elected would be “historic.” If the “media” wants “historic,” this decision was HISTORIC! IMHO.
Bump
The true meaning is that our all our rights went from coming from God to coming from a parchment that’s interpreted by man.
If the Constitution were to turn to dust would we lose our rights?
Is he too old for Zyprexa?
This decision points out the difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals are for collective freedoms for the state to do as it will against the individual and conservatives are for the freedom of the individual to do as he will against he state. We almost lost the second amendment to the state.
—bflr—
Well, even if he was "dead right", the word "primarily" is not the same thing as the word "exclusively".
This is evidenced by news “articles” in which editorial comments are inserted into news stories in places like the NY Times claiming bizarre things (on their own front page!) as that DC vs Heller “won't have any significant impact” anywhere, anytime, ever.
And this “lashing out” is also evidenced in the dissents filed by Stevens and Breyer that make claims (e.g. that there were urban gun bans in 1776 America) that they can not support with evidence.
Snap!
In the above we can find solace...for the Left has overstretched itself. Their claims are being laid bare.
For another example, consider that for *decades* the academic Left has invented (from whole cloth) and propagated a “collective rights” theory to explain why the 2nd Amendment allowed gun bans.
No more!
Now “collective rights” are dead.
Individual rights have triumphed...and even wild-eyed left-wing bastions of great legal heft (e.g. Harvard Law School) will have to begin teaching individual rights while stuffing “collective rights” theories down the memory hole...or at least...after this initial period of the Left lashing out at the Heller ruling has passed, *then* they will have to begin teaching individual rights in law schools.
And notice that I say “begin.”
What a sad state of affairs that our last several *decades* have seen law schools teach rubbish instead of actual Constitutional Law.
That ends here.
DC vs Heller is a game changer.
The Constitution means what it says, and the Bill of Rights protect individual rights.
For the Left, this is a radical rethink (but then again, that's why they are the Left while we've always been right).
How long has it been since a Supreme Court ruling protected the rights of anyone other than drug dealers, perverts and killers?
Certainly little common ground between the majority and the minority opinions!And certainly, even one new member of SCOTUS would change the pivot which is Kennedy. If Stevens, aged 88, or any of the other four "liberals" retires soon, then if we could even have a Sandra Day O'Connor in his place it would be an improvement. At least once in a while they would disagree with Kennedy when Kennedy was wrong - thus giving the Constitution a 5-4 win.
When you propose the likelihood of up to four vacancies before 2012, how many of those would likely be from the majority in Heller?
Here are some of the charges leveled by the Opinion against the Dissents: “Justice Stevens is dead wrong to think that the right to petition [First Amendment] is ‘primarily collective in nature.’ ” “Justice Stevens flatly misreads the historical record.” “Justice Stevens suggests that ‘there is not so much as a whisper’ in [Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution] ... that favors the individual-rights view.... That is wrong.’
The thing I notice in this discussion is the implication that the final configuration of the Opinion and the Dissents is arrived at collaboratively - the Opinion speaks confidently as to the exact nature of each of the Dissents. Has that always been routine?
As (legal) gun ownership is dependent upon the whims of local police departments, the following MAY be in order:
1. Multiple "Citizen Xes", with no criminal background or mental defect, apply for gun "permit".
2. Gun "permits" are denied.
3. (fill in the blank)
4. Shoots an intruder in his or her home, breaking 2 NJ laws simultaneously, "illegal weapon", no "castle" provision.
5. Does NOT allow or rejects plea bargain on multiple counts.
6. Takes issue to SCOTUS on points decided in Heller:
Comments?