Stare decisis, sometimes

Can we stop pretending that liberal jurisprudence is anything but warmed over politics in a judicial robe? Yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the left-leaning justices will vote what they believe regardless of what a law's intentions were. Concepts like 'stare decisis' (the legal principle that obliges judges to respect precedents established by prior decisions) that were so important during the confirmation hearings of Justice Roberts, mean nothing to the sitting liberal justices. Each of the left leaning judges voted as if The District of Columbia vs Heller had not decided unequivocally that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right. Justices Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor ignored stare decisis, the law, and the intentions of the authors of our Constitution to vote against restraints on Government power.

It's instructive to read the dissenting opinions in both the Heller and McDonald cases. In Heller, the contortions that the justices go through to attempt to defend their position is amazing in their duplicity. The dissents' arguments, logic, and linguistic acrobatics are so stunning that they are gently made fun of in the majority's opinion (it's both funny and sad that the logic used by the dissents is that poor). In the McDonald decision the dissenting justices dispense with attempting to argue law and instead argue politics. Justice Breyer talks about the effects of firearms ownership (itself an opinion) and doesn't dabble much in the law except to note that other countries have outlawed firearms ownership. What any of that has to do with The Constitution of the United States Of America is anybody's guess, but it clearly proves that the liberal Justices aren't making decisions based on law, precedent, or the framer's intention.

This leads us to a dangerous place in today's political landscape. Our legal system was designed to help prevent the abuses our founding fathers suffered under at the hands of a monarchy. The Constitution was designed to limit the power of the government, and our judicial system was designed to provide a check and balance on how power by the other branches was wielded. Once that judicial branch stops acting in that capacity, it becomes law-making body. As a law making body its members are not subject to political pressure in the same way that elected officials are and is entirely undemocratic.

This brings us to today's Senate confirmation hearings. The question of the day for Elena Kagan

is "Does stare decisis apply equally to Roe v Wade and The District of Columbia vs Heller?" Regardless of her answer, we know from what she has written that Elena Kagen would have voted with the dissenters, ignoring stare decisis, the law, the clear intent of our Constitution and that makes her unfit for the job.

Scalia's smackdown of the dissenting opinion was classic, and a must-read.

Cornell has links to the opinions in HTML

Quoting Scalia (Bolding is mine)

Exactly what is covered is not clear. But whatever else is in, he knows that the right to keep and bear arms is out, despite its being as “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” Washington v. Glucksberg , 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted), as a right can be, see District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U. S. ___, ___–___, ___–___, ___–___ (2008) (slip op., at 20–21, 26–30, 41–44). I can find no other explanation for such certitude except that Justice Stevens, despite his forswearing of “personal and private notions,” post , at 21 (internal quotation marks omitted), deeply believes it should be out.

Wow. In the language of a supreme court ruling, thems pracically fighting words. Scalia pretty much came right out and said the minority were practicing judicial malpractice.

Mark Levin gave a great reply to the stupid question Patrick Leahey asked of Kagan, ' the founders couldn't have anticipated the complex society we have today, therefore the court would have to make broad interpretations',ect.puke.

Mark noted (paraphrase) that the supreme court should not have an answer for every ill and that it was up to the states or the people because this is the only way to insure the greatest freedom with the least intrusion of government into our lives.

The Second Ammendment is a great example where justices go beyond their jurisdiction. It clearly states a right (of the people) that shall not be infringed, yet first, they refuse to recognize this 'right'(by supporting bans), and second, every permit/license/registration/fee, etc. required of a gun owner is an infringement and clearly violates the 2A.

Uninfringed means you walk into a gun store, see a gun you like, buy it, and walk out with it. No different than buying a three-pack of men's briefs uninfringed or bath oils and shampoo, uninfringed.

The Courts correct response to Chicago's ban should be to nullify it and let them know they'll be responsible civilly for any deaths where it could be reasonably shown to have occurred where a handgun or other gun, by it's absence due to their ban, contributed significantly to the likelyhood of death.

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.