PDA

View Full Version : 5-4 Scotus decision, anyone think that our freedom hangs on by 1 person.


problemchild
06-28-2010, 7:29 AM
If one of the Scotus judges get sick or has an Obama accident we lose our freedom. Does this bother any of you? It bothers me!

monkeshine
06-28-2010, 7:33 AM
It's a scary thought but I wonder if ut isn't just politically exoedient. Judges should be above politics bbt they aren't. I wonder if 1 or 2 dissenters wouldn't have switched sides if they didn't get a majority from the current 5. I mean, maybe they say there is no harm in dissenting so long as the ruling is correct?

Paladin
06-28-2010, 7:36 AM
As Rush always says, "Elections have consequences."

cineski
06-28-2010, 7:37 AM
I was just thinking the same thing. Shocking that something so plain and blatant was voted against by almost half the supreme court judges.

AndrewMendez
06-28-2010, 7:38 AM
It's a scary thought but I wonder if ut isn't just politically exoedient. Judges should be above politics bbt they aren't. I wonder if 1 or 2 dissenters wouldn't have switched sides if they didn't get a majority from the current 5. I mean, maybe they say there is no harm in dissenting so long as the ruling is correct?

First and foremost. I don't think any of them would miss a case like this. Even with a death as we have seen now. What is important to keep in mind is they are either Liberal or Conservative. If they are well aware that 5 will vote for it and will agree with Incorporation, then why should they consider bending in that direction, giving them a "non liberal" view. Just my .02.

Vtec44
06-28-2010, 7:38 AM
It is scary. I gotta read up on their opinion on why an amendment shouldn't be incorporated.

stitchnicklas
06-28-2010, 7:39 AM
if you read the decision justice stevens desented ,but only for a reason ,most of his opinion is in favor of incorporation

Paladin
06-28-2010, 7:39 AM
IIRC, the US Senate hearings on confirming Kagan to the Court begin either today or tomorrow.

If you don't like your RKBA hanging by the thread of 1 SCOTUS justice, get and STAY politically involved and active and get all the gunnies you know to do the same.

Sotomayer has shown her true colors. We've got to take back the US Senate this Nov to stop the next anti Obama could appoint to the Court.

CGK60
06-28-2010, 7:58 AM
Very scary it is that close of a vote. should of been 5-0 in our favor.

Thrasher416
06-28-2010, 8:41 AM
Very scary it is that close of a vote. should of been 5-0 in our favor.

Don't you mean 9-0 in our favor?

a1c
06-28-2010, 8:44 AM
Don't you mean 9-0 in our favor?

He's been watching the World Cup.

tenpercentfirearms
06-28-2010, 8:45 AM
http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/press/view/1265/

Statement of Paul Helmke on U.S. Supreme Court Ruling
Jun 28, 2010

Washington, D.C. – Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center and Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:

“We can expect two things as a result of today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago: the gun lobby and gun criminals will use it to try to strike down gun laws, and those legal challenges will continue to fail.

“We are pleased that the Court reaffirmed its language in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment individual right to possess guns in the home for self-defense does not prevent our elected representatives from enacting common-sense gun laws to protect our communities from gun violence. We are reassured that the Court has rejected, once again, the gun lobby argument that its ‘any gun, for anybody, anywhere’ agenda is protected by the Constitution. The Court again recognized that the Second Amendment allows for reasonable restrictions on firearms, including who can have them and under what conditions, where they can be taken, and what types of firearms are available.

“Chicago can amend its gun laws to comply with this ruling while continuing to have strong, comprehensive and Constitutional gun laws, just as Washington D.C. has done. After the Heller decision, at least 240 legal challenges have been brought to existing gun laws, nearly all of which have been summarily dismissed. There is nothing in today’s decision that should prevent any state or local government from successfully defending, maintaining, or passing, sensible, strong gun laws.”

###

As the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters, works to enact and enforce sensible gun laws, regulations and public policies. The Brady Campaign is devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.

For continuing insight and comment on the gun issue, read Paul Helmke's blog at www.bradycampaign.org/blog/. Visit the Brady Campaign website at www.bradycampaign.org.

And that there my friends is why I continue to only be partially pleased with these Supreme Court decisions. We keep winning, but it is still a long road ahead.

vantec08
06-28-2010, 9:09 AM
Very scary it is that close of a vote. should of been 5-0 in our favor.

Indeed. Just think . . . .the organizer-in-chief gets to make at LEAST one more SCOTUS appointment and a slew of appelates. The fat lady aint sung yet.

ojisan
06-28-2010, 9:16 AM
Helmke: "the gun lobby and gun criminals will use it to try to strike down gun laws, and those legal challenges will continue to fail".

Hmmm, so the "gun criminals" are actively involved with the legal process, ehhh?
Who are the "gun criminals"?
Apparently the gun lobby are the legal people since they are not the gun criminals, at least you were kind enough to make that distinction.
So, since the legal gun lobby people are pro-gun, then the gun criminals must be the anti-gun people right?

Mr. Helmke, look in the mirror.
It will be your "legal" challenges that continue to fail.
How's your lawsuit budget looking for 2010-2011?

-------------------------------------------------------

Yes, it is very disturbing that it was 5-4 again, and the Supremes did not have the courage to go big with this.
Our rights hang by a thread, but perhaps there is an extra strand or two helping to support the weight today.
Kind of a hollow victory, but it was a victory.
I threw a shot of Bailey's into this morning's coffee.

To all who worked so hard on this, thank you!

:notworthy:

:cheers2:

yellowfin
06-28-2010, 9:20 AM
Has someone opened up a store called The Gun Lobby yet?

Lead-Thrower
06-28-2010, 9:24 AM
Has someone opened up a store called The Gun Lobby yet?

:rofl2:

squishyhead
06-28-2010, 9:46 AM
I think the dissenting opinions for all SCOTUS cases are valuable for the legal scholars who will study these cases in the generations to come. My prefered method for making decisions is to hear the full story on both sides and decide for myself, and I'm glad that future generations will have a full view of what the judicial mindset was during this snapshot of history. I agree that there is probably a belief that there's no harm in dissenting once the "right" decision has been made. However, for Justices like Sotomayor who tend to legislate from the bench, the motives may be more directed at truly undermining and one day eliminating the 2nd Amendment. A win is a win though, so let's enjoy it and get ready for countless battles we're going to face down the road!

N6ATF
06-28-2010, 9:48 AM
"an Obama accident"?

jnojr
06-28-2010, 9:56 AM
If one of the Scotus judges get sick or has an Obama accident we lose our freedom. Does this bother any of you? It bothers me!

Yes.

Our entire concept of rights and the rule of law can depend upon chance and the roll of the dice.

Now, is this "locked in", or can one more Justice suffer an "unfortunate incident", be replaced, and a new 5-4 the other way court can "review" this, or modify it?

the_quark
06-28-2010, 10:06 AM
Now, is this "locked in", or can one more Justice suffer an "unfortunate incident", be replaced, and a new 5-4 the other way court can "review" this, or modify it?

The Supreme Court can always overrule itself later if it wants to (in fact, that's what Alan was trying to get them to do on Privileges or Immunities). There are a couple of factors that make this less likely:

1) As this decision shows, they really don't like to overrule themselves.

2) It may be hard to get an on-point case to the Supreme Court, now. They've made it pretty clear the 2nd is an individual right, and it applies to the states. Any attempts to appeal that up to the Supreme Court have to have a cert grant, and a pro-gun minority can generally scuttle those (as they did during the long dark time between Miller and Heller). Additionally, with no controversy (since no court should be deciding otherwise on those issues) it's really hard to even come up with an argument as why the supreme court should see this issue, again.

3) The longer a precedent stands, the more they hate to overrule it.

So, sure - if a terrorist blows up the Supreme Court and Obama gets to appoint nine new all-liberal justices, they probably could overrule it. But, short of that, a significant pro-gun minority on the court can keep the cases from being taken to begin with. The longer that happens, the more ossified it gets. This and Heller are huge victories for The Republic. Even if we somehow get nowhere else in the next spate of cases (which I don't expect) we'll have set things up for the next generation in fifty years to be able to keep basic gun rights. I believe these two cases have single-handedly assured the existence of The Republic for the next 222 years.

yellowfin
06-28-2010, 10:13 AM
2) It may be hard to get an on-point case to the Supreme Court, now. They've made it pretty clear the 2nd is an individual right, and it applies to the states. Any attempts to appeal that up to the Supreme Court have to have a cert grant, and a pro-gun minority can generally scuttle those (as they did during the long dark time between Miller and Heller). Additionally, with no controversy (since no court should be deciding otherwise on those issues) it's really hard to even come up with an argument as why the supreme court should see this issue, again.Might not be that hard or rare. NY, NJ, and MD will fight a lot of stuff all the way to the end, as their circuits have upheld no-2A for so long and have gotten so entrenched in their wretchedly wrong precedents they almost without question will have to be overturned by SCOTUS at least once each. They're too used to winning to concede defeat.

curtisfong
06-28-2010, 10:50 AM
I think most people here are missing the point. If it would have been 4-5, PorI would have gotten a 5-th for 5-4.

vantec08
06-28-2010, 12:15 PM
Yes.

Our entire concept of rights and the rule of law can depend upon chance and the roll of the dice.

Now, is this "locked in", or can one more Justice suffer an "unfortunate incident", be replaced, and a new 5-4 the other way court can "review" this, or modify it?

It used to be fair to say this country is being run by 5 people . .. a simple majority of SCOTUS. Now, its fair to say it is being run by ONE person .. . the swing vote on SCOTUS. We're on the Edge, man.

SAN compnerd
06-28-2010, 12:25 PM
Funny, in another thread, Scalia takes Stevens to task for this very issue.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=4528064&postcount=18

Sheepdog1968
06-28-2010, 12:39 PM
When I was in high school in the early 80s, I remember one of my teachers talking about how one of the greatest powers the President had was appointing a Supreme Court Justice. As I've gotten older and lived a little, I totally agree with this statement.

Roadrunner
06-28-2010, 12:44 PM
I think the dissenting opinions for all SCOTUS cases are valuable for the legal scholars who will study these cases in the generations to come. My prefered method for making decisions is to hear the full story on both sides and decide for myself, and I'm glad that future generations will have a full view of what the judicial mindset was during this snapshot of history. I agree that there is probably a belief that there's no harm in dissenting once the "right" decision has been made. However, for Justices like Sotomayor who tend to legislate from the bench, the motives may be more directed at truly undermining and one day eliminating the 2nd Amendment. A win is a win though, so let's enjoy it and get ready for countless battles we're going to face down the road!

Brit Hume made an interesting observation on Fox news about 20 minutes ago. In his comment, he observed that conservative judges tend to lean toward strict observation of the constitution while liberal judges who disagree with a certain aspect of the constitution, in this case the second amendment, think it shouldn't exist and so vote against it because they don't want it to exist. To me that says it all as to why the liberals vote the way they do. It seems that the liberals didn't consider the facts that are very obivious, but instead voted against incorporation because they don't like the second amendment.

botsdots
06-28-2010, 1:22 PM
It's a scary thought but I wonder if ut isn't just politically exoedient. Judges should be above politics bbt they aren't. I wonder if 1 or 2 dissenters wouldn't have switched sides if they didn't get a majority from the current 5. I mean, maybe they say there is no harm in dissenting so long as the ruling is correct?

+1 to this. I think people who are hanging on the 5/4 split are forgetting that once there's a majority, it's a decision. I believe it was probably a true 5/2 with the other two dissenting for personal/political reasons.

colossians323
06-28-2010, 7:57 PM
to the op If you believe that our freedom hangs on one person, you are sadly mistaken. Are freedom hangs on society to love liberty more than they love government handouts, and it looks like the public education system is doing a great job of convincing our children that all they need is some condoms and a 'living wage'..............Sad stare of affairs that we are in:(

abusalim81
06-28-2010, 8:02 PM
Im scared to even begin thinking about United States in the future... Freedoms? What freedoms. The leftist socialists got rid of them so the federal governement can keep everybody safe!

Barabas
06-28-2010, 8:10 PM
I think the thing that is missing from these 5-4 discussions is the knowledge that they don't write their opinions in a vacuum. Once a majority is obvious, then the remainder are free to dissent in various creative and/or political ways. They even get to review each other's opinions and revise and rebut before the decision is released. The justices actually spend a lot of time together and get to know each other well. You get the sense of that in their opinions if you read closely.

A 9-0 opinion is exceedingly rare, even on cases (like McDonald) where the constitutionality shouldn't be in question. Once that majority is reached, the justices CAN'T resist advocatus diaboli.

Sinixstar
06-28-2010, 8:16 PM
Brit Hume made an interesting observation on Fox news about 20 minutes ago. In his comment, he observed that conservative judges tend to lean toward strict observation of the constitution while liberal judges who disagree with a certain aspect of the constitution, in this case the second amendment, think it shouldn't exist and so vote against it because they don't want it to exist. To me that says it all as to why the liberals vote the way they do. It seems that the liberals didn't consider the facts that are very obivious, but instead voted against incorporation because they don't like the second amendment.

But by the same token - you're telling me that of the 'conservative' justices who voted for Due Process - but not P/I - did so purely for an intellectual respect for slaughterhouse's findings - or is there a potential political aspect that they're afraid of?

The pendulum swings both ways when it comes to political decisions on the bench.

MontClaire
06-28-2010, 8:24 PM
I'd say it's their rights hang by one vote. Or the country revolts and that's the end of everything.