2 Federal Appeals Court Judges argue against Scalia's Heller opinion

[Major]

Ruling on Guns Elicits Rebuke From the Right

Two prominent federal appeals court judges say that Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, is illegitimate, activist, poorly reasoned and fueled by politics rather than principle. The 5-to-4 decision in Heller struck down parts of a District of Columbia gun control law.

If you want to read the second page..

Username jones1234562xxx
Password jones654321

[stinkymcdoober]

Okay then, so they are saying the Heller ruling was a lost opportunity to limit our rights even more. yeah, uh, that makes sense, i guess. ??

"a willingness to embark on a complex endeavor that will require fine-tuning over many years of litigation.”

When i read that line, all i could do was laugh. So basically they are saying "this is just too hard to do, so instead rule against to save time and effort".

[mikepro8]

I like the conclusion at the end...
"Judge Wilkinson saved particular scorn for a brief passage in Justice Scalia’s opinion that seemed to endorse a variety of restrictions on gun ownership. “Nothing in our opinion,” Justice Scalia wrote, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Whatever else may be said about the Second Amendment, Judge Wilkinson wrote, those presumptions have no basis in the Constitution. “The Constitution’s text,” he wrote, “has as little to say about restrictions on firearm ownership by felons as it does about the trimesters of pregnancy.”

Mr. Levy, too, said he was not a fan of the passage. “I would have preferred that that not have been there,” he said. “It created more confusion than light.”


Scalia opened his mouth, but forgot to open his dictionary regarding the meaning of the word "infringed," as in SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. What part of that is so hard to understand?

[LittleRedToyota]

that wilkinson guy is downright scary. according to his philosophy, we might as well not even have a bill of rights.

the guy seems to have no understanding of the purpose of the supreme court or the role it plays in our system of checks and balances whatsoever. how the heck did that guy ever become a federal judge? holy crap.