10-21-2008, 01:24 PM | #1 | ||
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: North Carolina
|
PING: Cam--Conservative Judges come out against Heller . . .
. . . and compare it to Roe. Them's fighting words.
Ruling on Guns Elicits Rebuke From the Right - NYTimes.com A couple thoughts. First, I generally like Heller. I beleive that the Constitution should protect the rights of the minority against the will of the majority. So I tend to favor opinions that reasonably interpret the Constitution in such a way as to protect those rights. (And, ironically, I don't like Roe and think that it was wrongly decided. I'm not a very good liberal sometimes.) Second, these aren't just any two conservative judges. Wilkinson and Posner are two of the most intelligent conservatives in the world. Third, I do agree that the weakest part of Heller, by far, was the passage about "nothing in this opinion should be read to mean that we can't take away gun rights from the wrong kinds of people, if you know what I mean." It really does taint the whole opinion and make it read like a political statement rather than an intellectually honest interpretation of the law. (As an example, you would think that Heller, as written, will not affect the federal prohibition of felons possessing firearms. Sean Taylor (to use an example familiar to others on the board), as a former felon, could not have a firearm in his home and could not defend his life against those who broke into his home. If you are going to go as far as to say that the Constitution absolutely provides an individual right to firearms for, among other things, home defense, I don't think that the government has a compelling interest in saying that all former felons should not have that right.) Anyway, I respect your opinion on the subject and was curious as to what thoughts you had, if any, on the various Heller discussions. |
||
10-21-2008, 01:38 PM | #2 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
The argument is kinda wierd to me. I mean in the end, Wilkinson and Posner are basically saying it should be decided by the people, but in that case, what in the Hell are the restrictions in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution for?
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams Last edited by ISiddiqui : 10-21-2008 at 01:39 PM. |
10-21-2008, 02:31 PM | #3 |
College Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Arlington, VA
|
Sean Taylor is a bad example. He was never convicted of any felonies. His plea agreement in that armed assault case in FL allowed him to avoid a felony conviction. Maybe there was another incident you were referring to. He certainly had his share.
I don't have a problem with people owning guns, and although I disagree with Scalia on most issues, I think his opinion in this case is reasonable. An individual has a right to own a firearm, but that does not preclude the State regulating the terms of purchase or the kinds of weapons that may be purchased within reason, nor does it preclude the state from making a determination of who may not be able to purchase a firearm -- typically felons convicted of violent offenses and people with histories of mental problems. |
10-21-2008, 02:56 PM | #4 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: North Carolina
|
Quote:
Thanks for the clarification. I had heard that the reason he didn't have a gun was because of a prior felony conviction, but I certainly cannot confirm that. |
|
10-21-2008, 04:36 PM | #5 | ||
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
Absolutely. I'm not sure how Scalia could write this passage with a straight face: Quote:
Either the right of citizens to keep and bear arms should not be abridged, or they should, Antonin. I suppose one could argue that the right should not be abridged generally, but needs to be abridged in clearly common-sense cases. But if that's the case: 1. What ever happened to strict constructionism? 2. Where, exactly, do you draw the line? And why? 3. If you're going to allow the legislative branch to abridge the right anyway, why not just let them define it wholly (speaking from a theoretical standpoint, not a political standpoint)? All of which lends me to agree with Wilkinson's/Posner's arguments that it's effectively a political decision by the judicial branch (OMG! Activist Judges!). Scalia saw an opening to plant a flag for his view on the 2nd amendment, and abandoned his cherished constructionist principles to do so. |
||
10-22-2008, 09:11 AM | #6 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Arlington, VA
|
Quote:
And in so doing, Scalia established a reasonable precedent for gun ownership in America. Kick him in the nuts if you have to for giving a nuanced opinion, which I would agree goes against his standard MO, but the practical outcome of it is good. |
|
10-22-2008, 12:32 PM | #7 |
Stadium Announcer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
|
Sorry it took me awhile to get to this... I didn't see the post until I was already on the air last night.
I've read Wilkinson's article, but I haven't read Posner's piece. I also don't have anywhere near the legal mind of these two, so I fear this is going to be like a first grader challenging a PhD, but here goes. Wilkinson, for one, seems to object not only to the Heller decision but also anticipates a future decision regarding incorporation (which could come if the SC decides to take the Nordyke case in a few years). But isn't that in itself a bit of judicial reaching? I mean, at issue in Heller was whether or not three ordinances in D.C. violate the 2nd Amendment rights of non-militia members wanting to use firearms in their homes. This isn't a local issue, legally speaking, because Congress has ultimate oversight of the District, even if they've allowed the District a great deal of self-government since the 1970's. There was a reason the D.C. gun ban was challenged first, as opposed to Chicago's. You don't have to get into an incorporation issue with D.C. Secondly, we are dealing with an enumerated right, as opposed to an unenumerated right in Roe. If you believe in the concept of judicial review, then it seems a no brainer that the Court would want to take this case. Posner and Wilkinson don't mention the split that had occured in the lower courts, which was another reason the Court had to step in, IMO. The Court didn't issue a sweeping proclamation overturning local gun laws. It addressed the narrow question before the court, and avoided (for the most part) putting a stamp of approval or disapproval over various gun control laws. Yes, that will mean a number of additional court challenges to various gun control laws... just like we've seen with 1st Amendment cases. Scalia's statement is an odd one, and even Alan Gura and Bob Levy have said they're not fans of that statement. (I'll have to cut this short and pick up my train of thought later... have to do a conference call. Feel free to edumacate me while I'm gone though.)
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half. |
10-22-2008, 12:58 PM | #8 | |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
Once you commit a felony you lose many rights normaly garenteed in the constitution. You can not vote, hold office, etc... I do not see your argument that this should be an all or nothing deal when it is not in other places.
__________________
“The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” United States Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis |
|
10-22-2008, 01:08 PM | #9 | |
Death Herald
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Le stelle la notte sono grandi e luminose nel cuore profondo del Texas
|
Quote:
Actually, the Supreme Court has taken a section of the 14th amendment as allowing the right to disenfranchise those who commit felonies. As for running for state office as a felon, that falls to the individual states to decide. Many states disallow it in their state constitutions. But as to running for Federal office, the Supreme Court has said that there is nothing in the Constitution to forbid a convicted felon from running for Federal office. So you could have the situation where a convicted felon ran for the US Senate, but might not be able to cast a vote for himself.
__________________
Thinkin' of a master plan 'Cuz ain't nuthin' but sweat inside my hand So I dig into my pocket, all my money is spent So I dig deeper but still comin' up with lint |
|
10-22-2008, 02:34 PM | #10 | |
College Benchwarmer
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
OK, so I used a bad example. I still do not see "We can not do this because we would need to draw a line" as a legitimate argument. As you pointed out, if most state legislatures have no problem with it for voting, how can it be any more of a problem for gun ownership?
__________________
“The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” United States Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis |
|
10-22-2008, 03:14 PM | #11 | |
World Champion Mis-speller
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Covington, Ga.
|
Quote:
And that depends on the State. Most states allow convicted felons to vote once they are no longer on probabtion/parole. |
|
10-22-2008, 05:02 PM | #12 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
Even strict constructionists don't believe that all of the Constitution is absolute. Everyone has seen a "Calling fire in a crowded theater" exemption in the 1st Amendment, for example.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
10-22-2008, 09:32 PM | #13 | |
Stadium Announcer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
|
There's an interesting post over at Balkinization about this topic.
Balkinization Quote:
I don't know enough about Posner's history to know if this is accurate or not, but thought I'd throw it out there. It does seem that a purely pragmatic approach couldn't really be labeled conservative, and certainly couldn't be labeled "originalist".
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half. |
|
10-23-2008, 08:31 AM | #14 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Maybe Posner's a conservative in the dictionary sense of the word. Something like not wanting to assume/conclude too much from what's written. It would explain why he provides a savage beatdown on a regular basis to anyone who has a "structure" or "methodology" for arguing off of the Constitution's text.
|
01-08-2009, 08:31 AM | #15 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: North Carolina
|
Update:
Sentencing Law and Policy: "The New Second Amendment: A Bark Worse Than Its Right" Seems like the lower courts have taken Cam's observation about Heller being a narrow case (and my observation about "the wrong kinds of people") to heart. So far, every court to address the issue has rejected Heller based challenges to firarms laws. |
01-08-2009, 09:38 AM | #16 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
So is this basically a rejection of Scalia's opinion, or a faithful interpretation of it?
|
01-08-2009, 10:13 AM | #17 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: North Carolina
|
I think that, like most SCOTUS opinions, Heller left the heavy lifting to the lower courts (which isn't, in itself, a bad thing). Basically, it could have gone in any of several directions and not been inconsistent with the opinion.
Personally, I was most interested in whether Heller would call into question any existing federal gun crimes. And, without a further nudge from SCOTUS, it appears very unlikely to do so. |
01-08-2009, 03:40 PM | #18 | |
Stadium Announcer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
|
Quote:
I have several problems with the article you mentioned. For one, I'd like to know how many of these cases are dealing with prohibited persons as opposed to non-prohibited persons challenging various federal statutes. I'm guessing that the vast majority of the cases referenced were already "in the system" and a 2nd Amendment argument was simply tacked on by the defense attorneys. For instance, Winkler says that among the challenges rejected is a challenge regarding sawed-off shotguns. Well, that question wasn't decided by Heller, it was decided by Miller in 1939. The quantity of the challenges doesn't indicate the quality of them. Secondly, I'd say a lot of this is fairly unimportant until we get the incorporation issue decided (oral arguments before the 9th Circuit in one possible case are coming up on the 15th of this month). I think the impact ofHeller is going to be decided in terms of decades, not months. But I'm sure it was a nice rallying cry for those who were disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision last year.
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half. |
|
01-08-2009, 03:52 PM | #19 |
College Prospect
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Boston, MA
|
I have nothing to add other than "prohibited persons" could possibly be the least American sounding phrase I've ever heard.
|
06-03-2009, 08:11 AM | #20 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
And not expectedly, the 7th Circuit Court upheld Chicago and Oak Park's (IL) local handgun bans. Easterbrook & Posner were part of the 3-judge panel, all conservatives, apparently.
The WaPo (link above) also thinks it ties into the SCOTUS nomination: Quote:
Last edited by flere-imsaho : 06-03-2009 at 08:11 AM. |
|
06-03-2009, 08:43 AM | #21 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
I actually disagree with Sotomayor's opinion that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states. If it is found to be an individual right as it was in Heller, then it is certainly covered by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
However, I would agree that Heller does not prohibit laws banning the ownership of nunchuks. As Scalia wrote, "l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
06-03-2009, 08:57 AM | #22 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
I don't think that's what she (or Easterbrook) are saying, though. Although they're probably coming from different origin points in their arguments, both conclude (as of today) that the 2nd Amendment doesn't restrict the right of state or local governments to restrict gun ownership. |
|
06-03-2009, 09:10 AM | #23 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
How is that any different than what larry just said?
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
06-03-2009, 09:17 AM | #24 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
Quote:
This is the part I'm talking about. Since Heller found this ot be an individual right, then prior SCOTUS rulings need not be overruled insofar as how Heller pertains to state and local governments, since individual rights are automatically applied to the states via the 14th Amendment. Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment doesn't even have the same restrictive language that makes this a problem ("Congress shall make no law"). In fact, it definitavely states, "the right shall not be infringed." Whatever your opinion of the breadth of the 2nd Amendment's guarantee, it certainly applies to the states as well.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
|
06-03-2009, 09:21 AM | #25 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
|
06-03-2009, 10:02 AM | #26 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
Eh.. I wouldn't use the phrase "automatically". Each Amendment in the Bill of Rights had to be individually applied to the states through a SCOTUS ruling ("selective incorporation"). Most likely, due to Heller, the SCOTUS will soon incorporate the 2nd Amendment to the states.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
06-03-2009, 10:17 AM | #27 | ||
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
Quote:
You don't have to wait for SCOTUS to incorporate. For instance, the 9th circuit ruled that the 2nd Amendment was incorporated in Nordyke v. King because the 2nd Amendment met certain factors ("individual right") for incorporation. I agree with that ruling as opposed to Sotomayor's. Quote:
I have no doubt that they will. Any other ruling would not make sense.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
||
06-03-2009, 10:31 AM | #28 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
Well, most circuits tend to wait for the SCOTUS's lead on it, as every other Bill of Right (well most of every other BoR... the 5th Amendment right to a grand jury and 7th Amendment right to a jury trial in civil lawsuits also has yet to be incorporated - well, and the 3rd Amendment hasn't come up in most jurisdictions) has been incorporated by a SCOTUS case. In a footnote in Heller, it specifically states that the incorporation question is not up before the court.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
06-03-2009, 10:32 AM | #29 |
Stadium Announcer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
|
The good news about this is the timing: the 7th Circuit heard oral arguments in this case a week ago, and released their opinion today. From what I understand, the NRA will seek cert from the Supreme Court, which, if it's granted, could put the case on the fall calendar.
I've read the opinion, and (again, not being an attorney), it seems that both the 2nd Circuit and the 7th Circuit both punted on the issue of incorporation, saying that Cruickshank, Presser, and Miller all denied direct application of the 2nd Amendment to the states, and therefore it's not up to the appeals court to contradict the Supreme Court. Of course, as Scalia pointed out in a footnote in the Heller decision, in at least one of those cases the 19th Century Supreme Court also declined to apply the 1st Amendment to the states, which has now happened. The 7th (and Sotomayor's 2nd) could easily have reached the same conclusion as the 9th, in my opinion, and it wasn't judicial conservatism that kept them from it.
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half. |
06-03-2009, 10:36 AM | #30 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
I don't think it was necessarily activist either. It really can be read either way in incorporation grounds and there are plenty of instances where Appeals Courts would rather the SCOTUS rule upon reversing its own precedents.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
06-03-2009, 11:04 AM | #31 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
It's good to generally show deference for SCOTUS opinions in the name of stare decisis, but we're not talking about settled law here. This isn't Roe v. Wade. These are 100 year old precedents and the conditions have sufficiently changed to suggest they are no longer good law.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner Last edited by larrymcg421 : 06-03-2009 at 11:05 AM. |
06-03-2009, 11:24 AM | #32 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
100 year old precedents are still used . Especially when there are so few cases on point.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
06-03-2009, 11:53 AM | #33 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
Didn't say they weren't used, but certainly a court would be less likely to overturn recently settled precedent (like my Roe example) than they would a 100 year old precedent that was handed down before the new rules of incorporation were even adopted. Those new rules combined with the Heller decision clearly undermine the old precedent to the point where a court should reasonably rule that it is no longer good law.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
06-03-2009, 12:11 PM | #34 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
And having read the 9th circuit's opinion in Nordyke, they note that Cruikshank only rejected two forms of incorporation (direct application, privileges and immunities). They did not rule on a due process claim, which is the current precedent for determining incorporation. Therefore, a circuit court need not overrule Cruikshank to come to the conclusion that the 2nd is incorporated.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
06-03-2009, 12:42 PM | #35 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
As the Heller footnote states:
Quote:
Therefore it is quite reasonable to assume that Heller does not extend the right to the states quite yet. Blame Scalia for not writing dicta to change that (then again, he may not have had all the other justices in majority opinion on board for that).
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
06-03-2009, 12:57 PM | #36 |
High School Varsity
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
[quote=larrymcg421;2040883]You don't have to wait for SCOTUS to incorporate. For instance, the 9th circuit ruled that the 2nd Amendment was incorporated in Nordyke v. King because the 2nd Amendment met certain factors ("individual right") for incorporation. I agree with that ruling as opposed to Sotomayor's.
But just because the 9th Circuit said it was, doesn't meant it is incorporated everywhere. 9th Circuit decisions are not binding on the other circuits. Cam is right, what's happened is circuit conflict. Whether this amounts to a sufficient conflict that there are 4 justices willing to grant cert is a separate issue. There have been cases where the Supreme Court has waited until every circuit has agreed but 2 or 3 and cert wasn't granted. I don't think this will happen here, because the conservative justices are waiting to decide whether the individual right to bear arms is such a fundamental right that it is incorporated into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. |
06-03-2009, 12:59 PM | #37 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
In addition, due process incorporation decisions don't turn on "individual rights", but rather:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...20/0715763.pdf Quote:
Nordyke v. King pg. 29 Basically, Heller's conclusion that it was an individual right was far less swaying that the history that was spelled out in Heller (which, yes, partially was used to declare it an individual right, but also as vast historical cover).
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
06-03-2009, 01:04 PM | #38 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
And both Presser and Miller also worked under the "privileges and immunities" challenge, and the 9th circuit affirmed those opinions on those grounds. None of those opinions, including Cruikshank, dealt with the due process claim, so they weren't overruling any of them. In Gitlow v. NY and subsequent cases, incorporation was based on a Due Process theory, and I think the 9th circuit correctly found that the 2nd Amendment meets the Due Process requirements for incorporation, specifically citing the standards set forth in Duncan v. LA.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
06-03-2009, 01:10 PM | #39 | |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
[quote=Jon;2041038]
Quote:
I never said that it was controlling anywhere else. I'm simply arguing, as Cam said, that the other circuits should have reached the same conclusion as the 9th. The Cruikshank, Miller, and Presser decisions don't even deal with the 2nd Amendment as it relates to due process, so I don't see why either of those decisions would be considered binding. That amounts to ignoring Gitlow and subsequent cases that spell out the current standards for incorporation.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
|
06-03-2009, 01:10 PM | #40 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
Which doesn't necessarily matter because the footnote in Heller seems to give them different status than Cruikshank. That language indicates to me that it is perfectly reasonably to indicate the 2nd Amendment is not incorporated until the Supreme Court indicates otherwise. Obviously, Scalia could have made it easier if he indicated that Presser falls under Cruikshank in the incorporation discussion. But he didn't. Miller, btw had to do with a National Firearms Act.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
06-03-2009, 01:14 PM | #41 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
Quote:
Well, you'd have to decide if they were fundamental rights or liberties, and sometimes you want the SCOTUS to make that call. Obviously, since incorporation has been selective and over the years, there may be some disagreement as to whether certain rights are fundamental enough... if there wasn't, the SCOTUS would have taken the Justice Black view and done direct incorporation.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
|
06-03-2009, 01:44 PM | #42 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
Right, but the 2nd circuit didn't even rely on that for their ruling. They simply fell back on Presser, Miller, and Cruikshank. If they had said the right wasn't fundamental, then their opinion would be more sound. I still agree with the final judgment in the case, much like the 9th circuit ruling that still upheld the restriction even after incorporating the right.
Direct incorporation might be the only thing I agree with Justice Black on.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner Last edited by larrymcg421 : 06-03-2009 at 01:46 PM. |
06-03-2009, 01:57 PM | #43 | |
General Manager
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
|
Quote:
The whole incorporation of the 2nd ammendment this depresses me because it really reveals how decisions are based on policy views and not real contsitutional interpretation. I'm pretty sure that with few exceptions, judges that are all for every other right being interpreted broady and extended to the states would be against this one being so (because it's about guns). And similarly, those judges that prefer a more convervative constitutional view will be all for the broadening and incorporation of this particular right (because it's about guns). Sure, they'll both try to distinguish the 2nd amendment as special in some way, to keep of the myth that they're being consistent, but it's obvious that the legal justification came after the policy decision. That's just my assumption, I haven't read much of anything about the actual issue, or Heller. Last edited by molson : 06-03-2009 at 01:58 PM. |
|
06-03-2009, 02:03 PM | #44 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
Actually, as noted in flere's article above, two conservative justices on the 7th circuit ruled against incorporation, while the very liberal 9th circuit ruled for incorporation.
As for incorporation of other rights, I don't believe any justice currently thinks other rights should not be incorporated. You're not going to see a conservative justice rule that the 1st amendment doesn't apply to the states.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
06-03-2009, 02:08 PM | #45 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Decatur, GA
|
As I've pointed out though, there are portions of other rights not incorporated, such as parts of the 7th and 5th Amendments.
__________________
"A prayer for the wild at heart, kept in cages" -Tennessee Williams |
06-03-2009, 06:16 PM | #46 | |
Stadium Announcer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
|
Quote:
Actually, this is a different Miller case... Miller v. Texas, also from the 19th century. MILLER V. TEXAS, 153 U. S. 535 (1894) -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez The interesting thing about Miller is that the Supreme Court basically said incorporation was an issue that should have been raised in the trial court, rather than on appeal. So the Miller decision really had nothing to do with the merits of the argument.
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half. |
|
06-03-2009, 07:31 PM | #47 |
Stadium Announcer
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Burke, VA
|
Dola:
The NRA has officially petitioned the Supreme Court to grant cert. Here's the petition: http://volokh.com/files/nrapetition.pdf
__________________
I don't want the world. I just want your half. |
06-03-2009, 10:03 PM | #48 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
So anyone want to speculate what's going to happen here when it gets to the Supreme Court?
|
06-03-2009, 10:32 PM | #49 |
Head Coach
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Georgia
|
They'll uphold the 9th circuit and incorporate it via due process.
__________________
Top 10 Songs of the Year 1955-Present (1976 Added) Franchise Portfolio Draft Winner Fictional Character Draft Winner Television Family Draft Winner Build Your Own Hollywood Studio Draft Winner |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|