5-4, like Heller? In which all nine, aka unanimity, agreed the 2nd was an individual right?
Thomas actually wrote a concurrence but thinks “Privileges and Immunities” is better support for that position than the majority stressing “Due Process” clause.
Justice Scalia’s opinion is actually a concurrence as well – he attacks Stevens’ opinion.
Stevens probably repeats his Heller asininity agreeing that it is an individual right and should be incorporated and Chicago’s law[s] should be reviewed, BUT even a universal right can legitimately be written out of existence.
Interestingly, the debate was less about the Bill of Rights, and more about how (and whether) those rights are applied to state laws under the 14th amendment.
Even the 5 conservative (or conservative-ish) Justices have made it clear that gun rights are not absolute. The Court has drawn a deliberate legal distinction between private home ownership (called a "fundamental" right by Scalia) and other public exercises of the Second Amendment.
Nordyke v. King, a California suit which deals with a ban on bringing guns onto Alameda County property, has been on hold in the Ninth Circuit pending this decision. That case is on track for the Supreme Court, but it is not at all clear that it will get the same 5 votes to overturn.
As noted by another poster, Clarence Thomas' concurrence takes a somewhat different tack. To the likely dismay of some gun supporters, Thomas explicitly declined to pre-decide what weight this decision may carry with respect to substantive due process precedents involving other provisions of the Bill of Rights.
Going back to Heller, that decision endorsed legal bans on bringing weapons into "sensitive places," but only listed schools and government buildings as two possible examples, thus leaving a wide area for communities and lower courts to hash out. And they will.
Interestingly, the debate was less about the Bill of Rights, and more about how (and whether) those rights are applied to state laws under the 14th amendment.
Even the 5 conservative (or conservative-ish) Justices have made it clear that gun rights are not absolute. The Court has drawn a deliberate legal distinction between private home ownership (called a "fundamental" right by Scalia) and other public exercises of the Second Amendment.
Nordyke v. King, a California suit which deals with a ban on bringing guns onto Alameda County property, has been on hold in the Ninth Circuit pending this decision. That case is on track for the Supreme Court, but it is not at all clear that it will get the same 5 votes to overturn.
As noted by another poster, Clarence Thomas' concurrence takes a somewhat different tack. To the likely dismay of some gun supporters, Thomas explicitly declined to pre-decide what weight this decision may carry with respect to substantive due process precedents involving other provisions of the Bill of Rights.
Going back to Heller, that decision endorsed legal bans on bringing weapons into "sensitive places," but only listed schools and government buildings as two possible examples, thus leaving a wide area for communities and lower courts to hash out. And they will.
It must make Bram and his friends heartsick to see how often the Bill of Rights has been violated with impunity, beginning at 12:00 noon on January 20, 2009.
6 comments:
5-4, like Heller? In which all nine, aka unanimity, agreed the 2nd was an individual right?
Thomas actually wrote a concurrence but thinks “Privileges and Immunities” is better support for that position than the majority stressing “Due Process” clause.
Justice Scalia’s opinion is actually a concurrence as well – he attacks Stevens’ opinion.
Stevens probably repeats his Heller asininity agreeing that it is an individual right and should be incorporated and Chicago’s law[s] should be reviewed, BUT even a universal right can legitimately be written out of existence.
Give serious thought that four Justices believe that the Bill of Rights can be removed from the Constitution.
Do that and WE don't have a Constitution.
What other of the Bill of Rights can be removed? First, Fourth, Fifth, maybe the Eighth would be fine excised to suit some Proggy Dud.
Interestingly, the debate was less about the Bill of Rights, and more about how (and whether) those rights are applied to state laws under the 14th amendment.
Even the 5 conservative (or conservative-ish) Justices have made it clear that gun rights are not absolute. The Court has drawn a deliberate legal distinction between private home ownership (called a "fundamental" right by Scalia) and other public exercises of the Second Amendment.
Nordyke v. King, a California suit which deals with a ban on bringing guns onto Alameda County property, has been on hold in the Ninth Circuit pending this decision. That case is on track for the Supreme Court, but it is not at all clear that it will get the same 5 votes to overturn.
As noted by another poster, Clarence Thomas' concurrence takes a somewhat different tack. To the likely dismay of some gun supporters, Thomas explicitly declined to pre-decide what weight this decision may carry with respect to substantive due process precedents involving other provisions of the Bill of Rights.
Going back to Heller, that decision endorsed legal bans on bringing weapons into "sensitive places," but only listed schools and government buildings as two possible examples, thus leaving a wide area for communities and lower courts to hash out. And they will.
Interestingly, the debate was less about the Bill of Rights, and more about how (and whether) those rights are applied to state laws under the 14th amendment.
Even the 5 conservative (or conservative-ish) Justices have made it clear that gun rights are not absolute. The Court has drawn a deliberate legal distinction between private home ownership (called a "fundamental" right by Scalia) and other public exercises of the Second Amendment.
Nordyke v. King, a California suit which deals with a ban on bringing guns onto Alameda County property, has been on hold in the Ninth Circuit pending this decision. That case is on track for the Supreme Court, but it is not at all clear that it will get the same 5 votes to overturn.
As noted by another poster, Clarence Thomas' concurrence takes a somewhat different tack. To the likely dismay of some gun supporters, Thomas explicitly declined to pre-decide what weight this decision may carry with respect to substantive due process precedents involving other provisions of the Bill of Rights.
Going back to Heller, that decision endorsed legal bans on bringing weapons into "sensitive places," but only listed schools and government buildings as two possible examples, thus leaving a wide area for communities and lower courts to hash out. And they will.
What other of the Bill of Rights can be removed?
The 9th and 10th are long dead and completely forgotten. Just repeating them makes you a crazy militia member.
It must make Bram and his friends heartsick to see how often the Bill of Rights has been violated with impunity, beginning at 12:00 noon on January 20, 2009.
Post a Comment