TexasCHLforum.com

I would normally quote and interlace comments carefully for context, HerbM. But it's late, I'm tired, and I'm not sure what you're arguing about.

I said Scalia had to insert weasel language to get a majority. Stevie agreed. You said it was because of the realities of the case; I mildly disagreed, saying it was more about the realities of the current composition of the Court. I cited the minority opinion as an example of sitting justices' inability to read plain text.

Then you pointed out it was a MINORITY quote. "Well, duh!", as the teens say. Glad you're keeping up.

Beyond that, I really don't know why you're arguing with me.

HerbM wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:

KBCraig wrote:Here's my overall feeling: the holding was correct, but all the dicta leading up to the holding constitute the weakest possible correct ruling.

I believe Scalia had to insert lots of weasel language to bring Kennedy (certainly) and Roberts (possibly) on board for a single 5-vote ruling.

"Nail on the Head" post of the day!!!

Given the realities of the Heller case, what specifically would you expect differently?

It's more about the realities of the current Court, not the details of the case.

When a sitting justice can write this:
"The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."
...when it's clear that's exactly what they meant by "shall not be infringed", then you have to worry about the state of constitutional law in this country.

57Coastie wrote:

KBCraig wrote:...the first examination of every constitutional question should begin with the plain language of the Constitution itself.

I find it interesting, if not amusing, KB, that the four most conservative justices on the "Roberts Court" will at the drop of a hat expound on the Court's proper role being to "apply the words of the law" and not to "write the law," whereas in Heller these same justices joined in adding one very significant word to the Second Amendment. "...shall not be infringed" became "...shall not be unduly infringed."

Jim

Generally speaking, the four "conservatives" give me the most heartburn for their lack of ideological consistency.

They are staunch federalists, ruling the question is one of state's rights and not federal interventionism, whenever the several states are violating people's innate human rights. If the federal government wishes to swoop in and override state laws by prosecuting people for, say, medical marijuana when it's perfectly legal in that state, then they suddenly become Hamiltonians to a degree that would make the two Johns --Jay and Marshall-- proud, declaring supremacy of federal law in all matters.

Here's my overall feeling: the holding was correct, but all the dicta leading up to the holding constitute the weakest possible correct ruling.

I believe Scalia had to insert lots of weasel language to bring Kennedy (certainly) and Roberts (possibly) on board for a single 5-vote ruling.

This case reveals the lunacy of reliance on stare decisis. In a true case of first impression, like this one, there are no prior rulings to compare and weigh. Without guidance, the Court wandered timidly out of its comfort zone and blinked at the blinding light glaring off a Constitution unfiltered by judicial opinion; they hovered near the the mouth of the cave, eager to dart back inside at the first hint of danger or controversy.

Subsequent rulings won't have to suffer such anxiety: they won't have to rule "This is what the Constitution says," they can just say "This is what previous Courts have ruled."

Stare decisis has its place in statutory and tort law, where it can be relied on to assure equal treatment before the law. In constitutional law, it is ridiculous: the first examination of every constitutional question should begin with the plain language of the Constitution itself.

DParker wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Here is the official Brady Campaign response:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/rele ... elease=992

What?! The Brady Campaign issuing a statement that is not consistent with the facts?!! I'm shocked! SHOCKED, I tell you!!!

Unfortunately, there is some truth in their press release:

“The Court also rejected the absolutist misreading of the Second Amendment that some use to argue ‘any gun, any time for anyone,’ which many politicians have used as an excuse to do nothing about the scourge of gun violence in our country and to block passage of common sense gun laws. Lifesaving proposals such as requiring Brady background checks on all gun sales, limiting bulk sales of handguns, and strengthening the power of federal authorities to shut down corrupt gun dealers can now be debated on their merits without distractions of fear or ideology.

Their hyperbole and prejudicial terminology is whacky, but the truth is, the ruling is far from an absolute RKBA celebration.