Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles
Title: Alito: SCOTUS conservatives have lots of opportunities once we get Scalia’s replacement
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Nov 19, 2016
Author: ED MORRISSEY
Post Date: 2016-11-19 16:33:16 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 2155
Comments: 6
Alito: SCOTUS conservatives have lots of opportunities once we get Scalia’s replacement NOVEMBER 19, 2016 BY ED MORRISSEY Now that the election has settled the question of who will appoint the next Supreme Court justice, we have spent a considerable amount of time analyzing who might get Donald Trump’s appointment. Perhaps a better way to look at that question will be to recall the context in which it gets made. Earlier this week, Justice Samuel Alito laid out the potential agenda for a court in which an originalist replaces the late Antonin Scalia — and reminded the Federalist Society of the bullet conservatives dodged in the election: Justice Samuel Alito on Thursday laid out a possible agenda for the U.S. Supreme Court if it regains its conservative majority as expected after Donald Trump takes office, citing gun rights and religious freedom as among key issues it will tackle in the coming years. Alito, one of the court’s two most conservative justices along with Clarence Thomas, pointed to freedom of speech and a disruption of the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers caused by federal agencies expanding their authority at the expense of the U.S. Congress as other “constitutional fault lines” that could come before the court. Alito offered a sense of what a right-leaning court could accomplish on a number of issues, including free-speech challenges on college campuses, religious freedom, and protecting earlier victories such as Citizens United. Alito got specific on the danger to Heller and McDonald, and suggested that the next right- leaning court could tackle executive-agency overreach: In reference to gun rights, Alito mentioned Justice Stephen Breyer’s dissent in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court found an individual right to bear arms for self defense. Breyer’s dissent, in which he argued that the Constitution’s Second Amendment protects militia-related and not self-defense-related gun rights and it does not absolutely bar government action on guns, gave a “roadmap” to those who would seek to undermine the ruling, Alito said. Alito also assailed federal agencies including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for seeking to expand their power beyond what was allowed under laws passed by Congress. Certainly those earlier gains were put at risk with the passing of Scalia. However, it’s not terribly clear that simply replacing Scalia with another originalist will lead to a conservative renaissance on the Supreme Court. It’s a return to the status quo ante that produced the blessing of ObamaCare — twice. Even the gains made in some of these cases turned out to be more incremental than breakthrough, although they were all happily received. It could have been worse. The key isn’t the upcoming appointment, at least now that the election has been decided. It’s the next appointment after that, especially if one of the liberal seats on the bench open up for Trump to fill. Anthony Kennedy and to some extent John Roberts will still determine the swing on the court. A second appointment, assuming that scenario, will be the one that pushes the court to the right significantly enough to make originalism more dominant in the outcomes. For that reason, it seems more likely that Democrats will keep their powder dry on the upcoming nomination to replace Scalia. They need to save their remaining political capital to really go to the mattresses if Trump gets to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephen Breyer (and of course we all hope through retirement in health). They can’t afford to burn the SCOTUS filibuster on this first choice, but need to play for time and hope Trump’s political capital gets expended on other issues. If they’re smart and thinking long-term, they’ll organize a nay vote to make their point on the upcoming nominee and bide their time for the real nightmare scenario. Otherwise, flush with the success of the election and Democrats’ tone-deaf obstructionism, Republicans will bury the SCOTUS filibuster, blame it on Harry Reid, and give Trump carte blanche for at least four years on Supreme Court nominations.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: The Top Clown, and his sycophants... (#0)
Some of the clowns on this site claim that "the Constitution’s Second Amendment protects militia-related and not self-defense-related gun rights and it does not absolutely bar government action on guns," I wonder if what Alito said, just above, can change their minds?
Reid is being replaced by (up)Chuck Schumer as minority leader. Schumer is even more anti-gun than Reid. The 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. It does not absolutely bar government action on guns. The tpaine law of the imagination does not apply. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/opinion.html http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/boundvolumes/554bv.pdf District of Columbia v Heller, 554 US 570 (2008) From Heller at 581: Heller at 582: Heller at 584: Heller at 620: Heller at 624-25: We conclude that nothing in our precedents forecloses our adoption of the original understanding of the Second Amendment. Heller at 626: Heller at 627-28: Black's Law Dictionary, 6 Ed. The "right to keep and bear arms" existed in the colonies, was brought forth into the states before the union, and was protected by the 2nd Amendment. The right which existed in the colonies came from the English common law. The Framers saw no need to explain to themselves what that right to keep and bear arms was. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England Book the First - Chapter the First: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals Heller at 593-95: And, of course, what the Stuarts had tried to do to their political enemies, George III had tried to do to the colonists. In the tumultuous decades of the 1760’s and 1770’s, the Crown began to disarm the inhabitants of the most rebellious areas. That provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms. A New York article of April 1769 said that “[i]t is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence.” A Journal of the Times: Mar. 17, New York Journal, Supp. 1, Apr. 13, 1769, in Boston Under Military Rule 79 (O. Dickerson ed. 1936); see also, e.g., Shippen, Boston Gazette, Jan. 30, 1769, in 1 The Writings of Samuel Adams 299 (H. Cushing ed. 1968). They understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves. As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.” 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) (hereinafter Tucker’s Blackstone). See also W. Duer, Outlines of the Constitutional Jurisprudence of the United States 31–32 (1833). There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause. Heller at 626-28: We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874). It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
Some of the clowns on this site claim that "the Constitution’s Second Amendment protects militia-related and not self-defense-related gun rights and it does not absolutely bar government action on guns," I wonder if what Alito said, just above, can change their minds?I We have our answer, clown watchers... Posted in the ludicrously overextended reply just above is a perfect example of the closed, fanatical mind...
It has always amazed me how many clowns are anti-gun. I simply don't understand why they oppose the concept of using arms for self defense.
The problem that they show is, they may not be able to use a firearm in self-defense anyway. It is particularly apparent when an oppressor uses a firearm to FORCE an issue far removed from any self defense rationale. It is not a zero sum game, in otherwords; as an example: you left your self defense handgun at home and an oppressor overwhems you when you do not have possession of a the gun. The problem is, now shown as a self defense gun adds zero value to the situation. Hence, eliminate all guns to remove the capability and capacity of force of a would be oppressor.
Breyer’s dissent, in which he argued that the Constitution’s Second Amendment protects militia-related and not self-defense-related gun rights and it does not absolutely bar government action on guns, gave a “roadmap” to those who would seek to undermine the ruling, Alito said.
#2. To: tpaine, *Bang List* (#0)
Republicans will bury the SCOTUS filibuster, blame it on Harry Reid
Castle(C), Stein(G), Johnson(L)
#3. To: tpaine (#1)
Some of the clowns on this site claim that "the Constitution’s Second Amendment protects militia-related and not self-defense-related gun rights and it does not absolutely bar government action on guns,"
Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.
We described the right protected by the Second Amendment as “ ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose’ ”
“In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884).
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
Arms. Anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon.
5. THE fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects. See Malcolm 122–134. Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999), cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen. See 1 Blackstone 136, 139–140 (1765). His description of it cannot possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service. It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” id., at 139, and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence,” id., at 140; see also 3 id., at 2–4 (1768). Other contemporary authorities concurred. See G. Sharp, Tracts, Concerning the Ancient and Only True Legal Means of National Defence, by a Free Militia 17–18, 27 (3d ed. 1782); 2 J. de Lolme, The Rise and Progress of the English Constitution 886–887 (1784) (A. Stephens ed. 1838); W. Blizard, Desultory Reflections on Police 59–60 (1785). Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19thcentury cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e. g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e. g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
#4. To: All you sycophants, ---- and clown observers (#1)
Breyer’s dissent, in which he argued that the Constitution’s Second Amendment protests militia-related and not self-defense-related gun rights and it does not absolutely bar government action on guns, gave a “roadmap” to those who would seek to undermine the ruling, Alito said.
#5. To: hondo68 (#2)
Reid is being replaced by (up)Chuck Schumer as minority leader. Schumer is even more anti-gun than Reid.
#6. To: tpaine (#5)
I simply don't understand why they oppose the concept of using arms for self defense.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]