Posted on 06/28/2010 1:26:46 PM PDT by Rhonda Robinson
The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 majority, has once again vindicated the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms as constitutionally guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Court today extended to the states and local governments its 2008 ruling that individuals have a federally protected individual right to keep and bear arms, questioning the constitutionality of Chicagos outright handgun ban and sending the case back to the federal appeals court for further consideration.
Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito declared that the Second Amendments protection of individual rights,
applies equally to the federal government and the states
the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
The real news it wasn’t a unanimous majority to an obvious question that we all already knew the answer too.
Many decisions have been split 5-4 decisions lately. If Kagan successfully makes it through the Senate confirmation hearings you will see those split decisions favor the Leftists more.
I wouldn't exactly call it a "Major" victory considering it was 5-4.
More like a friggin squeeker. We hang in the balance, one more socialist justice and we are toast.
While it will definitely have a long term impact they will be replacing one liberal for another if they get Kagan. I doubt she’s influential enough to convince the conservative justices of her position to the degree of changing a vote.
This should now be settled law and kagan should be asked about it
How do yo figure that?
She is simply replacing Stevens.
It should have been 9 to 0. What happened to the other 4 clowns?
It’s a terrifying result, that only five of the justices believe in the Constitution as amended and that the other four feel perfectly free to substitute their own narrow political agenda for its very clear and unambiguous language.
How do you figure, since she would be replacing the most left-leaning justice on the court?
On what basis did anyone ever suppose that the fudndamental rights set forth and defined in the Constitution are anything other than individual rights? Persons, not municipalities, have inherent rights. By what logic could the outcome of this judicial deliberation have been other than it is?
The four dissenters should be tried for treason against the United States of America, convicted and hung on the steps of the Capitol. They actually voted AGAINST the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
If she is replacing Stevens then there’s not much to worry about.
How long will it take for you guys to realize(you guys meaning all the meat heads on FR who keep saying this)that IF she is confirmed she will merely be replacing another liberal, one of the existing 4 votes now on the court. The mix will remain the same and there will be no swing towards the left.
Not until one of the conservatives retires and a liberal put in their place, which is why we need to keep voting in conservatives.
I thought maybe you had knowledge that her legal arguments would somehow be so brilliant, she would steer the court the other way.
From what I've gathered Kagan is no "legal powerhouse" so I'm pretty sure we will continue with these 5-4 decisions with Kennedy being the swinger. Her seat will just be a liberal place holder and really offer nothing else, IMHO.
Wonder how Harriet Myers would have voted
But also heard they kicked it down stairs, while not giving a definite ruling. Is that right?
The real news it wasnt a unanimous majority to an obvious question that we all already knew the answer too.
Neither was the civil right decision by the SC.. 5-4 if my memory serves me. And that was treated by the democrats as if it was an 18-0 vote.
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.