Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Not so much "what" is left, but "who" is left to do so. If one of the five concurring justices had previously died and Obama had appointed another Kagan or Soto Mayor type, what do you think the Heller decision would have been? He may well be able to appoint a couple of justices in his final term. Then we may have a period when the Constitution is "subject" to those "liberal interpretations," which Spence speaks of.
|
pretty stark contrast (and I'd argue frightening) in the dissent...this is great... Breyer's dissent goes on to conclude,
"there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
I'm pretty confident that these liberals/progressives could apply the "no untouchable Constitutional right" thing to pretty much all/any of our Constitutional guarantees if they were in the mood
...........................................
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReelinRod
Breyer's and Stevens' dissents, like most treatises advocating for a restrictive interpretation, focus on what the 2nd Amendment isn't and what it doesn't do . . . Rare indeed is any explanation of what the 2nd does under their interpretation and how it has functioned with that action in the courts. Of course there is no such record to cite; theirs is just a grand thought experiment that can't withstand scrutiny.
That's simply not true. Seven's dissent on Heller is quite lucid and describes precisely what they believe the Second Amendment to be.
-spence
this is hilarious...Steven's dissent is a laundry list of liberal pretensions that prove the basic and obvious difference in thought process between the competing ideaologies....which is that some seek to follow the Constitution and others are always seeking a way around it...