The upcoming SCOTUS ruling: Thurs 6/26, 10 AM

[Zach]

5-4 is absolutely insane. Even crazier are their written dissents. You struggle to find any passages at all related to constitutional law. The substantive part of Souter's argument seems to be based on the (perceived) impact of the ruling on sociological trends!

Ive been hearing people talk for years about the activist court, but I guess Ive always halfway dismissed those arguments. Either through apathy, ignorance or media brainwashing, Ive been operating under the belief that the justices weren't completely pulling rulings out of their ass. Heller was kind of a lightbulb moment for me to open my eyes and notice what has been occuring on that bench. Im a little embarassed I haven't followed the going-ons of the high court more closely over the years.


But jesus, our individual right to bear arms was really 1 Democratic court appointment from being extinguished! I honestly thought this was going to be a no-brainer, 8-1 in our favor or better.

[ThomasJ]

Whatever you do, don't go back and revisit the Kelo decision.

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by Zach

I honestly thought this was going to be a no-brainer, 8-1 in our favor or better.

I didn't think 8-1, but I too was surprised by the 5-4 decision. From listening to the audio of the arguments, it didn't seem that all of the justices who voted against would do so. It's shocking and a bit scary to me that party/ideological beliefs came into play in a place where only the Constitution is supposed to matter.

[ChamberedRound]

From the Michael Bane Blog, a reference to a rousing piece of literature from none other than Ted Nugent:

http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/2008...aks-truth.html

Wednesday, July 02, 2008
Brother Ted Speaks the Truth

From my friend Mr. Nugent:

A “SUPREME” COURT? I CAN DO BETTER
by Ted Nugent

It is glaringly obvious that a critical lesson in history 101 is due in America, for it appears that not only does a lunatic fringe of anti-freedom Americans dismiss our founding father’s clear declaration of independence and succinct enumeration of our God given individual rights, but some Americans have the arrogance and audacity to question whether the right to self-defense is indeed one of these individual rights. Dear God in heaven, who could be this soulless? How about 4 out of the 5 so called “Supreme” justices of the land. God help us all.

Who could be so asinine as to believe that a free man has no such right to keep and bear arms for self-defense? What kind of low life scoundrel would know that courageous heroes of the US Military would volunteer over and over again to sacrifice and die for such self-evident truths, then turn around and spit on their graves by discounting the very freedoms that these brave men and women have died to protect?

Will these supreme legal scholars also affirm an individual right to chose the religion of our individual choice? Do they authorize our individual freedom of speech? Can you imagine? Them is fighting words my friends, and the line drawn in the sand has never been more outrageous.

Recent USA Today and Gallup polls showed a whopping 73% of good Americans know damn well that we are all created equal, and that we each have an individual right to protect our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. What kind of jackass doesn’t know this? Allow the guitar player to translate for the soul-dead amongst us.

Keep-this means the gun is mine and you can’t have it. This does not mean I will register it with a government agency. The government works for “we the people”, not the other way around, regardless of what Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein or Barack Hussein Obama or 4 supreme justices may try to tell you.

Bear-this means I’ve got it right here, on me, either in my grasp or damn near. This does not mean locked away in a safe, trigger-locked or stored at the local sporting club.

Shall not be infringed-this of course is another way of saying Don’t tread on me, for we will not be your willing crime victims, subjects, servants or slaves, so don’t even think about it.

When the evil King’s gangsters came to collect unfair taxes from Americans, we tossed their tea into the drink. When they came to disarm us into helplessness against their old world tyrannical ways, we met them at Concord Bridge and shot them dead till they quit treading on us. Any questions children? I didn’t think so.

Corrupt men cannot be trusted, hence the right of “the people” to chose the individual church of our choice, to speak our individual ideas and beliefs, to have individual freedom from unwarranted searches and seizures, and ultimately, to exercise our individual right to keep and bear arms so that evildoers cannot do unto us that which we would not do unto them. Get it? I would love to meet the human being who would argue these points with us. We would be looking at a fascist, and of course fascists, by all historical and empirical evidence, must be eliminated.

If you value the American Way, if you believe in the words and spirit of the US Constitution and our sacred Bill of Rights, if you know in your heart that you have the right, the duty, the spiritual obligation to protect yourself and your loved ones from evil in all of its forms, then you had best contact each and every one of your elected officials right away and let them know that you know exactly what the Second Amendment says and stands for. Remind them about the “shall not be infringed” clause.

It will not be the fault of the rotten anti-Americans out there who don’t believe in individual rights that rape and pillage our Constitution, it will be the fault of those who know better but failed to speak up. Now is the time to fortify America, and we better inform the Supreme Court just who truly is the “Supreme” Court of America-We the people. Individual people with individual, God given rights. The real America. Live free or die.

[VMJade]

Huh. Score one for the Nuge. Nice. Rep to follow.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Zach

The substantive part of Souter's argument seems to be based on the (perceived) impact of the ruling on sociological trends!

yes, if you read a lot of supreme court decisions, you will find they talk about all kinds of things other than the constitution.

they even sometimes specifally talk about allowing the government to violate the constitution if there is a "compelling state interest" that "outweighs" it.

it's sickening. that is not the way the supreme court is supposed to work. when the supreme court refuses to enforce the constitution, we might as well not even have a constitution. it becomes nothing more than a worthless piece of paper covered with chicken scratch.

originally, the idea was that the courts would just interpret the constitution and matters of law. there was no concept of considering facts outside of the law...or weighing the constitution against compelling state interests or any of that.

then along came louis brandeis (who actually did a lot of good things, but also completely destroyed the judicial branch of our government...and, thus, in a way our government). brandeis wrote a brief in a case before the oregon supreme court that argued that women should not be allowed to work more than 10 hours a day. his brief did not rely on legal reasoning, but rather on statistical "evidence" and conjecture about how women could not handle working more than 10 hours a day.

this was the first time a brief went outside of the realm of legal reasoning and into the realm of sociology. brandeis won and the brief became known as the "brandeis brief" and became a standard model for writing briefs. it marked a point in history where the courts started to view the actual law and constitution as only one consideration which is to be weighed against other considerations (like "compelling interests"). this is where the train went off the tracks and our system of government broke down.

here is a little snippet on the brandeis brief from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandeis_Brief

shortly thereafter came the new deal...the court at first did the right thing and declared social security and other new deal programs unconstitutional, but then FDR threatened to get congress to add seats to the supreme court which he would fill with new deal-friendly justices. the sitting court gave in and declared his new deal programs constitutional. that pretty much finished the constitution off.

if anyone is interested in reading more about how the supreme court has let us down, i highly recommend the book The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom by Robert A. Levy and William Mellor.

http://www.amazon.com/Dirty-Dozen-Ra.../dp/1595230505

the supreme court is terribly broken...and has been for quite awhile. and that is why america today bears very little resemblence to the country outlined in the constitution.

[wewo]

Havent read all the posts, but I assume many have noticed that while the Court did not rule on other issues it mentioned bans on carrying in sensitive places like schools and Courthouses may be upheld (paraphrasing). Although dicta, the implication is that carry in public may be protected. Is anyone aware of any pending challenges regarding open or concealed carry on these grounds. This is important to me ever since I moved to NJ. I would be greatly pleased if open or concealed carry is a protected right.