Just a think about the Supremes

[meirwen_1988]

I will be interested to see A) how the arguments are framed and B) how the court decides on the 2nd Amendment case (Chicago's ban on handguns). If the argument is framed narrowly enough, it may be no big deal, but if it is not VERY narrowly framed, if the court determines that Chicago has no right to more restrictive holdings than Federal courts/law, then I think the fiction that states have individual rights, and therefore individual responsibilities, will dissolve into the smoke.

I can't help but wonder how Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will go on this one? Will their interpretation of the absolute definition of the 2nd Amendment as they held it in the DC case triumph or will their avowed anti-Federalism rule the day? The others could go either way, depending on how the case is presented, but I think the conservative 4 are going to have to do some internal very heavy lifting to come to a decision that is either not contradictory to multiple other decisions or that puts more power in the hands of the states to interpret application of the Amendments than current political practice seems comfortable with.

This will be interesting to watch.

(Why, yes, one of my grandfathers [to the x-power] was a Supreme Court Justice--I guess genetics does have some effect. ;-))

Comments

[valgards.livejournal.com]

Sotomayor is the more interesting vote to watch. She has staked out a fairly moderate position on federalism, but a liberal position on guns.

I expect everyone to hold to form. There's no doubt really how the conservative four will vote. They have already shown that their federalist ideas are tidal: they come and go. For instance, their politics trumped their legal position on federalism in the case of medical marijuana (Alito, whose logic is normally very sound, wrote a tortuous opinion in that case). So I fully expect that they will hold suit and vote to strike the Chicago initiative, and I expect Kennedy to vote with them. There was nothing in Heller v. DC that limited it to the only federal teritories like the District of Columbia. What Sotomayor, who will have to tip-toe through Heller and reconcile her earlier federalist positions, does will interest me. But like I said I expect her to vote with the liberal wing and, as usual, it will go 5-4 to the right.

As I've said in the past. Heller is the conservative Roe v Wade, the decision they will do everything possible to protect. I don't think there's any doubt that Chicago's law (and eventually New York's Philly's, and possibly Boston's) is going to be struck down. If anything they will use the opportunity to expand Heller.

But, hell, Kennedy is always a wild card, so we really don't know. My own opinion is that Heller was correctly decided and that the Chicago law should be struck down as well. But I'm not on the court and never will be, so I don't count.

[blairya.livejournal.com]

I saw an interesting interview with one of the lawyers arguing the case. He said that we decided with the 14th amendment that states can't take away rights from the constitution - otherwise states could discriminate against people of color or refuse to let women vote... that's not exactly what he said, but that is what I took from it - that a right guaranteed in the constitution can't be taken by a state.

Made sense to me...

[maaggie1.livejournal.com]

I think Valgards and I would bore each other in conversation on legal topics like this - we agree straight down the line. The current supremes are going to go the way they have in the past (although, as noted, Kennedy is a wild card, I also think he'll go right on this one). I am interested to see how Sotomayor would frame her opinion and hope she writes a dissent. I do expect her to go left. And, I believe Heller was correctly decided as well. States cannot restrict rights granted under the US constitution. They can give additional rights, but they cannot restrict them. So, as long as the court interprets the 2nd amendment to allow such handgun ownership, states and cities cannot ban them like the Chicago / NY / Philly laws, as currently written, do. I don't this this court will overturn its current interpretation.

[meirwen.livejournal.com]

Well, in part that's what I mean about how the argument is framed. If the argument is that the Chicago law is too broad, then I think that the vote may be much more lopsided than 5-4, because even some of the liberals would agree. If, however, it is framed differently, I think we're looking at 5-4, with Kennedy voting with the right, but I wouldn't be surprised at all to see a number of separate written decisions and dissents since I don't think there would be much uniformity about the "why."

[dicea.livejournal.com]

[retiredmaj.livejournal.com]

I don't see the 2A amendment as being an federalism vs. anti-federalism issue. It's an enumeratered right in the Constitution, right there with Freedom of Speech.

If states and municipalities attenuated 1A rights the way 2A rights have been played with, do you think people would sit for it?

The 2A is written in plain language (despite the word-twisting of the anti-gun camps), and the subsequent writings by the Founding Fathers made it quite plain.

As a side note, I've noted the hardcore "separation of church and state" types build their argument on a subsequent writing by a founding father, but generally refuse to extend the same weight to the above referenced statements on 2A rights. A tad bit hypocritical if you ask me.

Ugly fact kids: All the Chicago and D.C. (old one anyway) laws do is create a larger victim pool for the asshats who won't follow the law anyway.

If someone wants to willingly be a victim, that's their right. The DO NOT have the right to dictate that *I* must be.