It's coming. Don't know when, exactly, but it's coming.
My thoughts on McDonald?
Only Thomas got it right.
I'm ashamed that four Justices are seated on that Court who can convince themselves that the Second Amendment means anything other than what Thomas said it means, and I'm sorely disappointed in the other four who - for whatever reason - decided that "due process" was EASIER than "Privileges or Immunities," especially Scalia.
And now we get to chip away at the foundations that The Other Side has been building since 1934. There's still a long way to go.
Ok. I admit, for my own selfish reasons (I like reading your writing) I was hoping for more than that, but, yeah, frankly, that pretty well aligns with my own thoughts. Thomas hasn't always been my favorite justice, but he knocked it right out fo the park with this one.
I'm reminded of Kozinski's line about how justices find it easy to eviscerate the obvious meaning of the constitution when it suits their predjudices (not an exact quote) in regards to the four who were opposed to the clear meaning of 2A. Disappointing, but unfortunately not surprising. Oh well, I suppose even Dred Scott stood as it was until we evolved our philosophies of personal liberty far enough.
"Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado, that “speech, or...the press” also means the Internet...and that "persons, houses, papers, and effects" also means public telephone booths....When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases - or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text. But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we're none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.
"It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it's using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences."
Silveira v. Lockyer, denial to hear en banc, Kozinski (dissent)
Congratulations - that is quite an accomplishment. As a new blogger with .002003 the number of visitors that that you've had, I am awe!
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/07/some-time-late-friday.html (11 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
/me puts on his nerd hat....
Anyone that block scripts won't be counted on Sitemeter so your real traffic is probably higher.
About 1/3rd of that is going to be Marxidelphia checking his threads and running away in terror and confusion.
Good for you!
Congratulations! :)
I'd like to propose a new motto for your blog: "Over 2 Million made smarter!"
Thanks for making me smarter, Kevin.
Hey, how's that latest ueberpost coming? :D
And I'm hoping for your thoughts about McDonald, too. :)
It's coming. Don't know when, exactly, but it's coming.
My thoughts on McDonald?
Only Thomas got it right.
I'm ashamed that four Justices are seated on that Court who can convince themselves that the Second Amendment means anything other than what Thomas said it means, and I'm sorely disappointed in the other four who - for whatever reason - decided that "due process" was EASIER than "Privileges or Immunities," especially Scalia.
And now we get to chip away at the foundations that The Other Side has been building since 1934. There's still a long way to go.
Ok. I admit, for my own selfish reasons (I like reading your writing) I was hoping for more than that, but, yeah, frankly, that pretty well aligns with my own thoughts. Thomas hasn't always been my favorite justice, but he knocked it right out fo the park with this one.
I'm reminded of Kozinski's line about how justices find it easy to eviscerate the obvious meaning of the constitution when it suits their predjudices (not an exact quote) in regards to the four who were opposed to the clear meaning of 2A. Disappointing, but unfortunately not surprising. Oh well, I suppose even Dred Scott stood as it was until we evolved our philosophies of personal liberty far enough.
The Kozinski quote is:
"Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado, that “speech, or...the press” also means the Internet...and that "persons, houses, papers, and effects" also means public telephone booths....When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases - or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text. But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we're none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.
"It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as springboards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us. As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny. If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it's using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences."
Silveira v. Lockyer, denial to hear en banc, Kozinski (dissent)
Congrats, Kevin. If Sitemeter is accurate, it occurred at 0554 EDT Sat 7/10/10. Now, on to 3 million. At 895/day, you should hit that about 7/31/2013.
Congratulations - that is quite an accomplishment. As a new blogger with .002003 the number of visitors that that you've had, I am awe!
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>