Court says individuals have right to own guns

[Faustian]

What do you think about it RY??

 

I know the answer already...

 

My favourite bit and I quote;

 

 

"This should not be surprising. The conservative justices regularly jettison judicial restraint when it is at odds with conservative politics. They've done the same thing in cases involving affirmative action and desegregation programs.

 

The irony is that the same conservative justices who were so eager Thursday to find an individual liberty under the 2nd Amendment are loath to do so when a right of a criminal defendant is at stake or when it is a matter of enforcing the religion clauses of the 1st Amendment. Thursday's decision is a powerful reminder that the conservative justices are activists when it serves their political agenda."

 

This is true and obvious and is a point I had alluded to previously. Judgement? No. Political leaning? Absolutely. The judges fail in their responsibility and demonstrate personal bias. They should be replaced by those more capable of doing the job they were appointed to do.

[Julian2]

An article on the ruling.

 

So what do you think of that article' date=' Julian?

[/quote']

I just offered it as an alternative point of view Rog, seeing that all the American "liberals" on the board appear to be pro gun.

I saw a piece written somewhere claiming that Chemerinsky is a political activist rather than a lawyer but I suspect that the Dean of a Law school might have a few insights into Constitutional Law.

No doubt you'll correct me if you think I'm wrong.

[rogueyam]

Chemerinsky is playing dishonest games with words in this piece. He purports to be exposing the hypocrisy of conservatives on the subject of "judicial activism" but at the start of his article he provides his own definition of "judicial activism" that is entirely at odds with what conservatives decry.

 

From the article:

 

If the terms "judicial activism" and "judicial restraint" have any meaning, it is that a court is activist when it is invalidating laws and overruling precedent, and restrained when deferring to popularly elected legislatures and following prior decisions.

 

This is nonsense on stilts. Conservatives, including justices Thomas and Scalia, have been quite clear for decades that judicial restraint is with regard to the original intent of those who ratified the relevant text of the Constitution. Judicial activism is treating the Constitution as a "living document" whose meaning is ever changing and looking to current mores and even foreign opinions to divine the "new" meaning of the existing text.

 

Additionally, Chemerinsky's take on reliance on legislators is at odds with the views of at least one legal scholar of some notoriety - himself!

 

...(Y)ou say you've never heard a persuasive argument as to why someone committed to "democracy" would want courts to determine the meaning of the Constitution when there is disagreement over its meaning. I think that the basic answer came from Marbury v. Madison: the limits of the Constitution have no meaning if they are not enforced and the other branches of government see their role as pleasing constituents, not upholding the Constitution. Courts, especially federal judges who are not electorally accountable, are more likely to see their role as enforcing the Constitution.

 

[Faustian]

But the facts remain, regardless of other posts he has made, conservatives are dishonest and duplicitous. The judges are afflicted by their own political bias. Their allegiances are well known about, it appears.

 

RY, do you feel the constitution isn't a 'living document'? Do you feel it should be taken 'as is' or is open to interpretation?

[Bangkoktraveler]

rogueyam is just another fellow traveler.

[rogueyam]

RY, do you feel the constitution isn't a 'living document'? Do you feel it should be taken 'as is' or is open to interpretation?

 

The Constitution means forever exactly what it meant to the people who wrote it and ratified it. The meaning of the text does not change unless the text itself changes.

 

If anyone wants the meaning of the Constitution to change then they should amend it according to the procedures contained in the Constitution itself. Period.

[Old Hippie]

Wow, for once I agree with you 100%! Either you are thinking like a true commie pinko lefty Liberal, or I am thinking like a rightist neo con fascist, but in any event, it is as you said, and the founding fathers knew this, and did allow for it with the Amendment clause/procedures.

[Bangkoktraveler]

As another one of rogueyam's leftist friends, I agree also.