SCOTUS: Supreme Court on the 2nd Amendment -- A Comic Interlude
Posted by WryMouth at 26 Jun 2008, 7:56 AM and is filed under The Left,Astonishing Tales,Bureaucracy,Americana 
A spate of 5-4 rulings in the Supreme Court this summer... Kennedy must feel like a god, and is probably cleaning up on "swing vote" incentives offered by his fellow justices. I'll bet he doesn't have to pay for dinner for at least the next six months.
"The Federal Gubmint? I say let 'em do whatever they want!
You can't have too much intrusion of government into private affairs, says I!"
Here, though, is a light-hearted passage from Justice Stevens' dissent on the SCOTUS ruling striking down a generalized gun ban in Washington, DC*:
... 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, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court’s opinion,
I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice. ...
Get it?! ROFLIMHO!the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials
wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons, and to authorize this Court to use the common-law process of case-by-case judicial lawmaking to define the contours of acceptable gun control policy. Absent compelling evidence that is nowhere to be found in the Court’s opinion,
I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice. ...
It's funnier if you remember that this is a Supreme Court justice who cannot believe that the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America made a choice to limit the reach of elected officials...
*Washington, DC — the crown jewel of American cities... think about it.
Didja ever read the book Bork wrote after his confirmation hearings?
It provides a wonderful framework for understanding the various systems employed by sitting justices for judicial action. Good read.
Justice Stevens is one of those hale and hearty fellows who just makes ones scalp crawl. I have heard him advocate using foreign law to adjudicate cases in the United States. The reason? Those laws are "more enlightened."
.
Reply to this
Thanks for the steer on non-fictional readings... I wonder if Cogito read it; he's even more deeply into American politics than I...
I don't want "more enlightened;" I want Constitutional. Send Stevens to the Ninth Circuit Court, where he belongs, if that is his standard.
Reply to this