Thursday, May 23, 2013
Thursday, May 23, 2013

UPDATED: Scalia to City: Drop Dead

News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.

124 comments

UPDATED: Scalia to City: Drop Dead

POSTED: Thursday, June 26, 2008, 10:39 AM

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

When did a silly thing like evidence ever matter?

UPDATE: From Slate's Dahlia Lithwick:

But I must first pass along this rather brilliant observation from professor Stephen Wermiel from American University, who wonders why none of the dissenters cautioned the majority that today's decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." (Boumediene, Scalia, J. dissenting.)

Will Bunch @ 10:39 AM  Permalink | 124 comments
124 comments
Comments  (124)
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:13 PM, 06/26/2008
    pagoda: I certainly agree that any efforts along these lines must be treated to serious and constant oversight to avoid entrapping the innocent or general abuses. I am glad you found the article interesting. She is more conservative than I am (she wants to keep the prison at gitmo open, I agree with McCain that it should be closed) but I have found her to be thought provoking whenever I have read her work.
    bon
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:18 PM, 06/26/2008
    I applaud the ruling and I know why the left is whining so much about it. It contained no penumbras, no auras, no emanations and no inherent rights, and no international laws were cited! There weren't even any penumbric emanations, unlike those found in another Court ruling liberals consider sacred. Instead, in the case at hand the clear and plain English of the Constitution was upheld. A great day for us conservatives!
    George Tomezsko
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:34 PM, 06/26/2008
    "We focus so much attention on the president but is anyone in this country more powerful right now than Anthony Kennedy?" . . . . . . . A great observation, Will. More than any other justice on the court (at least since O'Connor left), Kennedy shows an ability and willingness to interpet the law without bending it to suit an ideological agenda. If he's the most powerful person in America, it's because he may be the only constitutional official doing the job he was appointed to do.
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:49 PM, 06/26/2008
    To bon, and b.atk, the quote in Will's post references Scalia's dissenting opinion on the recent habeus corpus case. He actually said that the court's majority decision would lead to more American deaths. Regardless of your stance on both issues, its an interesting opinion in light of his vote yesterday.
    RG
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 1:58 PM, 06/26/2008
    The quote you seem to love to use "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is used completely out of context. While you can certainly debate how far this protection should be applied, there is no doubt when you read the entire amendment and the debate that occured between federalists and anti-federalists that led to its inclusion, the framers intended that the states should be able to keep an armed militia at the ready to prevent oppression by the standing army controlled by the federal government. The amendment in full reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I fail to see how allowing individual citizens to keep private handguns in their vehicles, on their persons, or in their homes is contributing to the security of a free state.
    srmzeus11
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:03 PM, 06/26/2008
    "......Actually it's the contrary. Does the good professor know that since the DC gun ban was enacted in 1976, the crime rate rose to a high of almost 500 homicides in 1991?..."-----) Another jmc classic - reflecting that his concept that "proof" equates to anything that confirms his opinions. Chew on this, jmc. What would the murder rate in DC have been had there been no ban? You don't know, do you? Would it have been higher than it was with a ban? You don't know, do you? In other words, you have no way of actually assessing the affect of the ban. What is clear, however, is that the SC has taken away the right of the citizens in DC to legislate gun regulations in their own community as they see fit. It is endlessly fascinating how some folks talk over and over about "judicial activism," yet amazingly manage to dismiss it when the SC takes away the right of citizens to create laws in their own communities when their desire doesn't match specific political agendas.
    Talking point sleuth
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:04 PM, 06/26/2008
    RG: I do not think the two ruling are at all related, though. Habeus rights have, on a few occasions, in a time of war, been set aside to protect American lives. The right to bear arms, so far as I know, never has.
    bon
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:09 PM, 06/26/2008
    Habeaus rights were set aside during the civil war (rebellion) and during WWII (which, although was was not rebellion or invasion or uprising) - the second time we admitted it was a huge mistake and made reparations accordingly. This situation has none of the characteristics of either of those, especially the "justified" suspension during the civil war.
    srmzeus11
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:11 PM, 06/26/2008
    "......Should Scalia only consider the problems of inner cities in his ruling? I realize this is difficult for leftists to accept but Philly will have to solve its own problems......"----) Another beautiful comment. Apparently, you don't realize, fake Plebby, that the SC has, in fact, just significantly limited the ability of the citizens in Philly to solve their own problems. The SC has told Philly that if the even if the majority of Philadelphians agree that handguns should be banned, they can go suck an egg. Why? Because members of other communities might be upset if Philly wants to have stricter limits on guns then they do in their own communities. Why? The people of DC didn't want to dictate to members of other communities how they should regulate guns. But the SC has just determined that it's fine for members of other communities to dictate to the citizens of Philly how they can regulate guns.
    Talking point sleuth
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:11 PM, 06/26/2008
    Posted by tommy john 01:57 PM, 06/26/2008 God help us,for this moment of temporary (in)sanity. There, fixed it for you.
    srmzeus11
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:15 PM, 06/26/2008
    "....This will mean many more black faces behind bars and six feet under. That's the price of freedom, and many would gladly pay it......" ----) And here we have the most interesting comment of the thread. Makes one wonder just how many folks proclaiming concern about the constitution are really just using the constitution as a cover for racist attitudes, doesn't it? I'm sure that legatus will chime in momentarily to take this "conservative" to task for the blatant racism in his comment. Momentarily.
    Talking point sleuth
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 2:17 PM, 06/26/2008
    "The right to bear arms, so far as I know, never has." . . . . . . . Bon, the last armed insurrection by American citizens occurred in the 20s in southern West Virginia. Coolidge mobilized the Army to disarm the coal miners.


View comments: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  | 
About this blog
Will Bunch, a senior writer at the Philadelphia Daily News, blogs about his obsessions, including national and local politics and world affairs, the media, pop music, the Philadelphia Phillies, soccer and other sports, not necessarily in that order.

PLEASE COMMENT WITH PASSION...

...but not with racial slurs, potentially libelous allegations, obscenities or other juvenile noise. Such comments will, at our discretion, be deleted in their entirety, and repeat offenders will be blocked from commenting. ALSO: Any commenter advocating killing any government official will be immediately banned.

Reach Will at bunchw@phillynews.com.

Will Bunch
Blog archives:
Past Archives:
Blog Roll