4 ms·

Not quite. I’m saying that liberal judges tend to ignore the law when it comes to highly political issues. For example, how many opinions have you read from Gi

Not quite. I’m saying that liberal judges tend to ignore the law when it comes to highly political issues. For example, how many opinions have you read from Ginsburg where she says “I personally disagree with this outcome, but the law is clear.”? Quite rarely.

larkost 7y ago
I would argue that this is not really a "liberal" thing. Up until the 1970's the courts (including the Supreme Court) regularly found that the right to bear arms was in the context of establishing a militia, and not really a personal right. They consistently citied the "A well regulated Militia" part. The law was clear. Nowadays Supreme Court president effectively ignores the militia part, and has created a personal right mostly out of whole cloth. So 200 years of president out the window, mostly for a political issue.
- homonculus1 7y ago
  That interpretation is farcical and was rightly overturned. How can a right be held by the collective if it is not protected for the individual? Are we to believe that individual journalists may be hauled off to jail without violating the freedom of "the press"? Collective rights are held by the States. "The people" are individuals and the prefatory militia clause is not a limit.
  - iron0013 7y ago
    The founders included that clause for a reason.
    - homonculus1 7y ago
      The Supreme Court opinion in DC v. Heller explains why that clause was included: >The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#tab-opinion-1962738 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#tab-opi...
      - iron0013 7y ago
        And to think that Scalia considered himself an originalist! I guess that only applied when it was convenient to him :/
        homonculus1 7y ago
        This is originalism as clearly supported by the numerous references to contemporary language, other writings of the authors, and comparison to other language in the Constitution. Have you read the opinion?

larkost 7y ago

I would argue that this is not really a "liberal" thing. Up until the 1970's the courts (including the Supreme Court) regularly found that the right to bear arms was in the context of establishing a militia, and not really a personal right. They consistently citied the "A well regulated Militia" part. The law was clear. Nowadays Supreme Court president effectively ignores the militia part, and has created a personal right mostly out of whole cloth. So 200 years of president out the window, mostly for a political issue.

homonculus1 7y ago
That interpretation is farcical and was rightly overturned. How can a right be held by the collective if it is not protected for the individual? Are we to believe that individual journalists may be hauled off to jail without violating the freedom of "the press"? Collective rights are held by the States. "The people" are individuals and the prefatory militia clause is not a limit.
- iron0013 7y ago
  The founders included that clause for a reason.
  - homonculus1 7y ago
    The Supreme Court opinion in DC v. Heller explains why that clause was included: >The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#tab-opinion-1962738 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/#tab-opi...
    - iron0013 7y ago
      And to think that Scalia considered himself an originalist! I guess that only applied when it was convenient to him :/
      - homonculus1 7y ago
        This is originalism as clearly supported by the numerous references to contemporary language, other writings of the authors, and comparison to other language in the Constitution. Have you read the opinion?