EckerNet.Com

It seems like only just the other day (actually it was!) that I was reading an article debunking the frequently cited myth that liberals are smarter than conservatives.

Liberals wish. Democrats like to think that voters who sympathize with their views are smarter than those who vote Republican. But a 2007 Pew survey found that the knowledge level of viewers of the right-wing, blustery “The O’Reilly Factor” and the left-wing, snarky “The Daily Show” is comparable, with about 54 percent of the shows’ politicized viewers scoring in the “high knowledge” category.

Ok fair enough, we’re equally smart, we just differ in opinion. I can live with that. Oh happy world, what a wonderfully balanced utopia we live in

[That screeching sound you hear is reality interjecting itself.]

Wait…what’s this?

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

Um, what?? Seriously? Only 29% of Obama’s supporters believe the Supreme Court should rule based upon the Constitution??? And a full 49% believe they should just pull their opinion out of their ass??? Really!???

[Checks calendar and notices today is in fact not April 1st.]

Wow.

I’m a little bewildered. I’m not sure what angle to approach this from. Because this is a concept I’m pretty sure was covered in my elementary school social studies/civics classes….if not then, certainly by Junior High. How could only a small number know that a SCOTUS justic rules by the Constitution? Otherwise how could a reasonable adult, most of whom probably tied their own shoes that morning, admit to a pollster, they are a complete and utter dumbass??

[Crossposted at True North]

Okay during my more lucid moments this weekend I had the chance to read through all 157 pages of the Heller vs DC decision that was handed down by the US Supreme Court last week. A lot of my initial questions have been answered so at the very least it was worth the effort for that reason alone.

My initial reaction was shock at the fact that the decision was a 5-4 decision. Certainly reading through the oral arguments made it sounded much more one-sided argument than would be explained by 5-4. However, it appears as if both sides simply ceded the individual right argument and instead argue both the scope of the issue and what constitutes reasonable regulation.

My one major disagreement with the decision, and part of the focus of Breyer’s dissent, is that the majority doesn’t really indicate what degree of regulation states can use on the use of firearms. It would be nice to have some sort of guideline or I fear that we’ll be right back in this same spot in the future.

However, on the plus side the majority did state unequivocally that any law that impeded the ability for law-abiding responsible to use weapons, in common use at the time, for the use of self-defense of home and hearth, would be unconstitutional. That’s a fairly solid unassailable legal footprint from which to fight back the hordes imposing gun control on everyone.

I had originally thought that the dissenting opinions would be more interesting to read through than the majority but I was very very wrong. First they essentially ceded the individual rights point, and tried to making a stand on minor issues but tried to do so from within the construct of Steven’s majority opinion.

Breyer’s dissenting opinion essentially builds upon Stevens by making another dissenting point. While I think he had a point to make it was quickly lost in the complexities of his argument. Essentially he argued technicalities for about 50 pages in an effort to have it come together at the end with some sort of effect. FAIL.

Steven’s dissenting opinion was just plain painful. Most of Steven’s arguments require you to just accept his assumptions and definitions at face value, rather than providing any sort of legal support. Arguments concentrate mostly on the drafting history of the Second Amendment. Basing your argument on things there were left OUT of the final draft seems less than intelligent from my point of view.

Of course, I’m not a lawyer (to my credit) and I’m not overly experienced at reading legal opinions (to the credit of my social life) but I get the sense that Justice Stevens wasn’t a real good lawyer. I get the sense that the other Justices don’t think so either because in the majority decision, Justice Stevens is absolutely trounced throughout.

End result is that the Second Amendment appears quite safe for awhile for personal uses of firearms at home. However, it does leave the regulation door wide open and that is going to be a target of eternal vigilance for all Second Amendment activists. It also does nothing to address the civic aspects of firearms at all. So this isn’t the landmark decision that many had hoped for, but then again I don’t think anyone in even their most hopeful moment, thought it might be.

SCOTUS has released it’s decision on Heller vs DC, and has found an individual right to keep firearms, at least in one’s own home for both protection and hunting.

The opinion is here. I’ll try reading through it and giving up my thoughts.

But basically the facts from 30K feet….It was a 5-4 decision. Scalia wrote the court’s decision, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy. Apparently both Breyer and Stevens wrote dissenting opinions, joined by Ginsburg and Souter. To be honest, the dissenting opinion is probably going to be more interesting.

UPDATE : I’m still reading through the opinion so I don’t have anything to offer yet, plus I still want to double check the end result with some of my previous thoughts, and the reasoning for those thoughts at the time.

To be honest I’m still not feeling well at all, and today’s blood work indicates I probably won’t turn the corner until Monday.  Sitting up and reading for an hour requires a six hour nap to recover, you do the math considering the opinion is over 150 pages…..interesting though it may be.

On Monday, the Supreme Court could potentially announce their decision on two pretty critical cases today (Monday, June 15th, 2008). The Supreme Court sessions ends next Monday (June 23rd) so in all likelihood even if they aren’t announced today, they’ll be announced very soon.

Here are two big cases to watch out for:

DC vs HELLER - The infamous second amendment case. As this will arguably be SCOTUS’s biggest decision this session, I’m rather expecting it to wait until the end of the session but the Gitmo case was already announced, for which I had assumed the same, so it shows what I know.

Here is a pretty good roundup of what to expect from this decision, especially since it makes the distinction between upholding the Second Amendment for a number of purposes, most notably civic and personal. The author (Mike O’Shea) is right that there is a general consensus amongst airchair justices that the Second Amendment will in all liklihood be upheld….so the debate comes down to finer distinctions.

I fully expect this decision to essentially tapdance around the Miller 1939 decision, and come down in favor of private rights, leaving the argument for/against civic uses essentially twisting in the wind. Is I wrote previously, SCOTUS made it clear from the start that their decision would be limited to the case at hand, which is an issue of private usage.

Civic usage is likely to remain undecided, allowing states pretty wide latitude to ban “scary guns”. While SCOTUS, due to it’s non-elected state, is theoretically free from having to respond to public whims that may change from day to day, I don’t think most of the Justices want to come forward with a decision of essentially granting everyone the right to a howitzer.

Day vs Bond - According to US law, states can give in-state tuition to illegal aliens, but ONLY if they also provide that same tuition rate to US citizens. At least ten states have basically just ignored that last part and provide in-state tuition to illegals but charged US citizens from other states higher rates.

Those states include : California, New York, Utah, Washington, Oklahoma, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, and New Mexico. Many more states, including Minnesota, have debated similar bills.

Lower courts have ignored the issue, so this is an effort to get the federal government to force states to follow federal law.

[Crossposted at True North]

Well the first shots have been fired in defining the meaning of the Second Amendment. Oral arguments were heard today and in fact ran well over what was originally scheduled. Probably most surprising was the starting point of both sides. The lawyers representing the gun ban side, essentially conceded that the Second Amendment specifies an individual right early on. They made a few token attempts to argue against it, but it became fairly obvious that the court wasn’t open to that point of view.

Basically the final opinion is likely to come down to answering a few specific questions. First, given that the 2nd Amendment secures an individuals right to keep and bear arms, can the government regulate that and in what manner? And if they can regulate it, which level of judicial review should it have to pass??

What that basically means is that those that argue in favor of the Second Amendment aren’t likely to lose any ground any this case. Roberts, Scalia and Alito seemed firmly in the individual rights camp. Kennedy seemed to be leaning that direction and I’m assuming Thomas would be the same, although he seemed silent in the debate. Souter and Ginsburg were solidly in the “guns are the source of all evil” camp. Breyer was a little harder to figure out where he was leaning, although it appeared he was likely leaning towards the individual right side of the fence.

Overall it was absolutely fascinating to read through and listen to the arguments made. Many are ones I’ve heard in one form or another. Others were new points of view, at least to me, that were interesting to entertain even if I didn’t necessarily agree with them.

In the end it appears that the Second Amendment is likely to be held as an individual right, but subject to regulation by the government. This is not exactly without precedent (as I believe one of the Justices pointed out), as speech, assembly and press are all also subject to reasonable regulation, despite being individual rights. What defines “reasonable” appears likely to be the bulk of the discussion at this point. Although, from at least the impression I got from both arguments and the points the justices were making “reasonable” appears that it will probably fall far short of an outright ban such as the DC gun ban is.

[Crossposted at True North]

The US Supreme Court is scheduled to begin hearing oral argument of District of Columbia vs Heller today, which is shaping up to be one of the more important cases dealing with the Second Amendment. Both sides consist of some fairly big names and expensive talent. It’s also a bit of a shame that a case this big is mostly being overlooked by the fact that we’re in the middle of a very contested presidential race. While it’ll probably get the occasional mention by the press, certainly not the attention it deserves.

So a few things to keep in mind, to both better understand it and keep things in perspective.

This case is probably not going to actually decide the full meaning of the Second Amendment. SCOTUS has already made it clear that their ruling is going to be limited to the questions :

Whether Washington, DC’s bans [on handguns, on having guns in operable conditions in the home and on carrying guns in the home] violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their home.

Remember that this case originated with Shelley Parker, and some other residents, arguing that the ban prevented them from using firearms for home-defense. The ruling will likely be limited to that very narrow focus. The Supreme Court originally rejected this case, and weeks later accepted it, so it’s unlikely their intention is to make a broad ruling on the Second Amendment entirely. However, even a narrow ruling may have wider implications and potentially initiate other lawsuits around the country.

Gun control activists will claim this was all settled in 1939. This is a claim I’ve already heard trotted out lately, and it’s laughable. The case they are referring to is US vs Miller, and they claim that this case stated that the Second Amendment only applies to those in a militia. Refuting that end, I think the critical passage in the opinion written by Justice McReynolds, is as follows :

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

That appears to make it quite clear that militia does NOT mean the National Guard, but rather basically any male capable of defending themselves. I’m interested in hearing the modern day politically correct liberal try to reconcile woman’s equality with their hatred of firearms in the above passage though.

But regardless of US vs Miller, the individual right of firearms has existed long before 1939 and has been reaffirmed since the writing of the Second Amendment. Most notable in my opinion is US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story’s declaration that :

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Doesn’t exactly sound like a state or militia right does it?

Pro Second Amendment activists can wait this out. When the smoke from this decision clears, it’s more than likely nobody is going to be happy with the result, but it’ll still be the result. More than likely this is just the first in a long long long string of court cases and legislation necessary to definitively lay down what the Second Amendment means and what is allowed.

What that means is activists need to stay involved and need to make their voice heard. Not only with their voice, but also with their votes and money. This is going to take politicians passing common sense laws reaffirming one of our basic rights and to do that they need to feel secure that the it’s not going to come back and bite them later. I’ve heard more than one legislator privately gripe that they sometimes feel betrayed by the “gun lobby” because they demand so much but contribute so little to campaigns later on. I suspect that’s not entirely true, but more likely that gun enthusiasts simply aren’t directly stating that part of their support is due to their interest in the Second Amendment. It’s time to make that explicit so politicians realize it’s not just something they can gloss over.

Either way, this is going to be a hell of a ride….

[Crossposted at True North] 

The Supreme Court has announced that it will take up the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, which will almost force it to decide once and for all whether the 2nd Amendment is an individual right or a collective right.  And that decision would likely either completely settle the gun rights issue or at the very least, make it a very very uphill (think Everest) battle for one side or the other.

Now while I am convinced that since  every other amendment in the Bill of Rights that specifies “the right of the people” makes that an individual right, I do have my concerns.  Especially when one considers the makeup of this court.

Even more worrisome is that every person has their breaking point.  How much do they let their government get away.  For many that point is impossibly far away.  For some, the federal government has already passed it.  For others, that point is when guns are banned for individuals.  After all, every single tyrant in history, has sought as one of his first courses of action, to confiscate weapons from the people.

Add into that, that this case isn’t scheduled to be heard until March of 2008, which introduces a political element as the presidential race will just be ramping up.  Both sides seek to court the moderate vote.  Obviously Republicans have the advantage here, although that may not necessarily be true, at least two of the GOPs leading candidates are not really friends of the NRA if you get my meaning.

Regardless, it might be time to officially make the MN Militia into a regulated militia…if only to preserve our sizeable collection of firearms.  We have a executive committee meeting scheduled for later this week, with the honorable 50c presiding.  It might be a good time to propose this to the council.

For quite awhile now, when conservatives have salivated over the idea of yet another Supreme Court opening, Judge Stevens has always been at the top of the list. He’s chief qualifer for that list is…well, he’s old. Word is that he’s determined to retire under a Republican President as well. So we got that going for us….which is nice.

But you gotta take another look at the list when you see this…

The subject matter was extremely technical, and near the end of the argument Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dozed in her chair. Justices David Souter and Samuel Alito, who flank the 72-year-old, looked at her but did not give her a nudge.

Wow…I guess keeping track of what’s in a “living document” is a little more tiring than well, just reading what it says. Sounds like someone could use the sweet rest that retirement brings.

My guess is she’s gonna stick it out, in which case I know what I’m buying Alito and Souter for Christmas presents. A set of cymbals, an air horn and a wiffle bat.

Trying to decide how I should feel about this:

New Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito split with the court’s conservative Wednesday night, refusing to let Missouri execute a death-row inmate contesting lethal injection.

Ok, after listening to liberals complain for weeks that Alito was the most right-wing reactionary to ever exist, on his first case he sides with the liberals.

From our “Well Duh” Department :

Both Nightwriter and John Hinderaker point out that for a group of people who claim to be “troubled” and “concerned” about what type of judge Alito is, they certainly were very conspiciously absent when they had the oppurtunity to learn exactly that.

Extraordinary that Judge Alito’s colleagues have turned out to defend him against the Democrats’ smears; extraordinary that the Democrats themselves couldn’t be bothered to stick around to hear what this distinguished group of judges had to say. After all, if the Democrats were actually interested in what kind of judge Sam Alito is, these are precisely the witnesses who could tell them. If the Democrats really thought that Alito’s judicial opinions reflect poorly on him, these are exactly the people who could answer their questions, and, if they are correct, confirm their fears.

Really this should be of no surprise to anyway. As I pointed out earlier, these hearings have very little to do with Judge Alito himself. Rather it’s merely another stop on the campaign trail for 2006/2008. The previous hearings allowed them to satisfy the Howard Dean/George Soros contingent of their party by smearing a decent and honorable man. And in do so, as Sisyphus’s numbers demonstrate, they provided very little oppurtunity for Alito to defend himself against baseless accusations.

Now that they can’t score scumbag points by disparaging the man…and more importantly the cameras are less prelevant, what is the reason to stick around?? For them to be in the same room with a man of their same ideology, who is defending Judge Alito’s character doesn’t benefit them at all. They can do more damage elsewhere.

And of course I’m going to make a rather safe prediction. After spending a majority of their time not asking Judge Alito questions when they had the chance, and then skipping the chance to hear his colleagues talk about him, you will hear most Democratic member of the Committee on the Judiciary complain that they don’t know enough about him to vote for him.