Posted on 03/18/2008 9:25:56 AM PDT by NinoFan
http://www.cspan.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS
If is was, he'd have at least thrown in the “only rich white landowners” argument
Did you listen to the hearing? I did - from beginning to end. Just as listening to JWright's "sermons" provides much more insight & context than just reading his words, so too was listening to the comments/questions posed by the liberal members of the court.
IMHO, based on their posture, inflection, line of questioning, etc, is that one simply cannot escape the central conclusion that the 2A is an individual right not limited to soldiering.
Where they may differ to varying degrees is the legislative ability to specifically place certain restrictions in lieu of public safety. That may well indeed bring the final vote down to 5-4, but it will 9-0 on individual right.
bump
And, just how do you propose to flush them out?
bump
Agree......I listened too that on CSPAN....took the after noon off to do such and was amazed at the shit’n shineola going on in that arena.
Doom on em .........
Stay safe Sir !
Reading the transcript I just got to that part and thought the same thing myself. Kicking myself for not catching it on the broadcast.
rtsp://video.c-span.org/archive/sc/sc031808_2amendment.rmAfter a short delay (depending on speed of your Internet connection), it should start playing.
If you use a file download manager such as Net Transport, you can save the file (99.5 MB) to your hard drive...
Completely depends on who is interpreting Miller, and what parts were overturned. Both sides use the Miller decision as ammo.
Lost the feed while Gura was still on.
If Heller prevails, I think that this will be one logic test for the repeal of 922(o).
Point well taken. I meant that they seemed to be willing to cave on the "militia usefulness" aspect. That was the part of Miller that actually made sense.
It's the logic point I'm worried about.
Way, way, way too optimistic. You are aware that the ONLY issue before the court is limited to "Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?". Incorporation is not at question in this case, nor is it likely that other Statutes (Such as the Machine Gun Ban) will be affected. At least learn how the Court operates before you make such bold predictions.
Interesting, I remember reading reports where Bush laid out 5 or 6 items that any CFR must, or must not, do. Of course McCain/Feingold broke every one of Bush's demands, and he signed it anyway.
The hopeful thinking at the time was that while Bush signing it was a big disappointment, the Supreme Court would throw it out.
I”ve read the transcript of lots of SCOTUS orals, including this one. Souter and Ginsberg have a habit of sounding one way, writing another. They just haven’t found the hook on which they want to hang their argument. Yet.
I could be wrong, I’m just going from experience of watching the SCOTUS. Thomas, as always, remains quiet and bases his opinion on the written briefs.
If I’m wrong and all nine justices agree that the 2nd recognizes an individual right, you’re going to see a rather large contingent of the left just have a stroke. They’ve got 40+ years of sophistry tied up in the “collective rights” argument, and to have their liberal justices agree that there is in individual right will cause heads at the NYT and other left-wing papers to just explode.
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.