Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: neverdem
Great vanity. So the justices 'voted', and what should have been a landslide turns into a split decision. They pulled back the curtain and exposed four anti-Americans for all to see. Great.

Now what? Four justices appointed to the highest position in our legal system just 'flunked'? Are we that infested? And what does that say about the rest of the legal system and all the players?

If the foundation of this country has been eaten away such that some of it's culprits now sit on our highest court, it's collapse is imminent. Holy cow.

50 posted on 06/26/2008 6:06:35 PM PDT by budwiesest (Brake the law before it breaks you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]


To: neverdem

In the Washington Post story of today, is this statement, “But the majority declined to set a level of scrutiny by which judges should evaluate the constitutionality of gun restrictions that governments may set.” This shows that the battle is still not over and if the liberals win the election they will nominate more liberal justices and gut this ruling of today, because the main battle is going to be in the court’s opinion of the level of scruting the courts (federal and state) must take of any law or bureaucratic ruling that seeks to restrict the individual right to keep and bear arms.

In other words, will a future Supreme Court case decide that 2nd Amendment cases should be decided based on the basis of (1) a “strict scrutiny,” meaning any government attempt to restrict individual rights in this area is automatically to be held inherently suspect annd unconstitutional unless something like grave national security is at stake or laws and regulations that discriminate on the basis of race or spoken free speech; (2) or an “intermediate scrutiny” meaning any government attempt to restrict individual rights to keep and bear arms is to be held mostly suspect by the courts, with the government having to pass a high hurdle in order to restrict arms —like laws that discriminate on the basis of gender or symbolic free speech; (3) or an enhanced scrutiny meaning that governments have to face much less scrutiny and suspicion from the courts as they pass laws and regulations that restrict the right to keep and bear arms —like laws that discriminate on the basis of age or commercial free speech.

“We the People” won half a loaf—recognition of the individual right to keep and bear arms, but not the other half, which is the level of scrutiny by the courts over any attempt to restrict that individual right. Obviously, it should be a “strict scrutiny.” but if the liberals prevail in the presidency, Congress and eventually in the courts, they may set an individual level of scrutiny or even an enhanced level of scrutiny, thus allowing more and more restrictions by federal, state and local governments on the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Jay Madham


79 posted on 06/27/2008 4:35:04 AM PDT by Jay Madham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: budwiesest

The Republicans should use this ruling and stress the importance of having conservative justices on the bench.
Could be a great campaign ploy for electing McCaniac.


106 posted on 06/27/2008 10:34:53 PM PDT by evangmlw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson