Breaking: Court strikes Chicago handgun ban

posted at 10:41 am on June 28, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The Heller decision now has a sibling.  The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit in a widely-anticipated case that defines the reach of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in the case of McDonald v Chicago.  The ruling invalidates Chicago’s ban on handguns and reiterates the Court’s finding that the post-Civil War amendments to the Constitution incorporated the Bill of Rights into law binding on the sovereign states:

Despite all this evidence, municipal respondents argue thatMembers of Congress overwhelmingly viewed §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment as purely an antidiscrimination rule. But while §1 does contain an antidiscrimination rule, i.e., the Equal Protection Clause,it can hardly be said that the section does no more than prohibit discrimination. If what municipal respondents mean is that the Second Amendment should be singled out for special—and specially unfavorable—treatment, the Court rejects the suggestion. The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner. …

(a)
Petitioners argue that that the Second Amendment right is one of the “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”There is no need to reconsider the Court’s interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause in the Slaughter-House Cases because, for many decades, the Court has analyzed the question whether particular rights are protected against state infringement under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Pp. 10–11.
(b)
Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are rejected because they are at war with Heller’s central holding. In effect, they ask the Court to hold the right to keep and bear arms as subject to a different body of rules for incorporation than the other Bill of Rights guarantees. Pp. 33–40.

The decision came on a 5-4 vote, with the usual suspects on both sides.  Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion in this case, and he dissects the dissent from Justice Stephen Breyer, especially the notion that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t address the notion of inequality of power and thus doesn’t qualify under consideration of incorporation under the 14th Amendment:

Second, petitioners and many others who live in high-crime areas dispute the proposition that the Second Amendment right does not protect minorities and those lacking political clout. The plight of Chicagoans living in high-crime areas was recently highlighted when two Illinois legislators representing Chicago districts called on the Governor to deploy the Illinois National Guard to patrol the City’s streets.31 The legislators noted that the number of Chicago homicide victims during the current year equaled the number of American soldiers killed during that same period in Afghanistan and Iraq and that80% of the Chicago victims were black.32 Amici supporting incorporation of the right to keep and bear arms contend that the right is especially important for women and members of other groups that may be especially vulnerable to violent crime.33 If, as petitioners believe, their safety and the safety of other law-abiding members of the community would be enhanced by the possession of hand-guns in the home for self-defense, then the Second Amendment right protects the rights of minorities and other residents of high-crime areas whose needs are not being met by elected public officials.

The 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution for two reasons: self defense and defense against tyranny.  In both cases, it addresses an inequality of power.  The founders never intended to create a police state that would make self-defense unnecessary; indeed, such a state is impossible to achieve anyway, as totalitarian states repeatedly proved during the 20th century.  Even if it were, though, that was hardly the kind of government constructed by the Constitution.  The founders understood that limited government necessitated a citizenry able to defend themselves against criminals and psychopaths, and wrote the amendment to prevent the government from stripping them of their own legitimate defense.

Justice Scalia rips outgoing Justice Stevens in his concurrence:

The next constraint JUSTICE STEVENS suggests is harder to evaluate. He describes as “an important tool for guiding judicial discretion” “sensitivity to the interaction between the intrinsic aspects of liberty and the practical realities of contemporary society.” Post, at 24. I cannot say whether that sensitivity will really guide judges because I have no idea what it is. Is it some sixth sense instilled in judges when they ascend to the bench? Or does it mean judge sare more constrained when they agonize about the cosmic conflict between liberty and its potentially harmful consequences? Attempting to give the concept more precision, JUSTICE STEVENS explains that “sensitivity is an aspect of a deeper principle: the need to approach our work with humility and caution.” Ibid. Both traits are undeniably admirable, though what relation they bear to sensitivity is a mystery. But it makes no difference, for the first case JUSTICE STEVENS cites in support, see ibid., Casey, 505 U. S., at 849, dispels any illusion that he has a meaningful form of judicial modesty in mind.

JUSTICE STEVENS offers no examples to illustrate the next constraint: stare decisis, post, at 25. But his view of it is surely not very confining, since he holds out as a “canonical” exemplar of the proper approach, see post, at 16, 54, Lawrence, which overruled a case decided a mere 17 years earlier, Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U. S. 186 (1986), see 539 U. S., at 578 (it “was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today”). Moreover, JUSTICE STEVENS would apply that constraint unevenly: He apparently approves those Warren Court cases that adopted jotfor-jot incorporation of procedural protections for criminal defendants, post, at 11, but would abandon those Warren Court rulings that undercut his approach to substantive rights, on the basis that we have “cut back” on cases from that era before, post, at 12.

In other words, the dissent to both Heller and McDonald appear to be “incorporation for me, but not for thee.”  Once the Court determined that the Constitution and its amendments became incorporated into limitations of state and local law, the 2nd Amendment goes along with it.  That’s not terribly difficult to comprehend, but Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor want to eat their cake and have it, too.  They want to incorporate everything but the 2nd Amendment, and simply put, there is no intellectual basis for that reasoning that doesn’t involve torturing logic on a virtual medieval rack.

Gun bans will be tossed on the ashheap of history, where they belong.

Update: An important note from the AP — the ruling did not explicitly strike the Chicago gun ban, but it will certainly result in the end of it:

Monday’s decision did not explicitly strike down the Chicago area laws, ordering a federal appeals court to reconsider its ruling. But it left little doubt that they would eventually fall.

It also leaves open less draconian measures to control the use of guns in states and cities, such as registration, limitations, and so on.  Flat-out bans, or ridiculously burdensome regulatory regimes that act as de facto bans, won’t pass McDonald muster.

Update II: Glenn Reynolds joins an interesting debate at the New York Times.  Be sure to read his entire essay, but this comment from Michael Bloomberg aide John Feinblatt is typically hyperbolic:

In short, the Supreme Court has ruled that gun ownership is a constitutional right, but like all rights, it is limited. Just as there is no right to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, the court has written that there is no right to bring a handgun to a school.

Except that the bans in Chicago, Washington DC, and New York City weren’t on bringing guns into schools.  They banned people from keeping them in their own homes, too.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

you know, I don’t want to sound like someone who follows conspiracy theories, but obama will still not get a majority court unless something happens with one of the conservatives on the bench

ConservativePartyNow on June 28, 2010 at 12:46 PM

I see the Preamble to the Constitution guaranteeing the “Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity” as grounds for reversing Roe v. Wade. Killing our posterity certainly denies them Liberty.

Unfortunately, many of our Supreme Court justices have equal disdain for Liberty and our posterity.

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 12:47 PM

How telling that this passes today, when another big liberal judge’s hearings began…

Schadenfreude on June 28, 2010 at 12:47 PM

More specifically I should say the Preamble “to secure” the Blessings of Liberty to use the precise Constitutional wording.

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 12:49 PM

Four. God Created man, Samuel Colt made them equal.

Holger on June 28, 2010 at 12:38 PM

God created man and woman. Sam Colt made them equal. :)

Wethal on June 28, 2010 at 12:50 PM

I see the Preamble to the Constitution guaranteeing the “Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity” as grounds for reversing Roe v. Wade. Killing our posterity certainly denies them Liberty.

Unfortunately, many of our Supreme Court justices have equal disdain for Liberty and our posterity.

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 12:47 PM

great point vike

ted c on June 28, 2010 at 12:50 PM

With this decision and July 4 coming up, I think I’m going to start restoring another Garand.

JohnTant on June 28, 2010 at 12:52 PM

God created man and woman. Sam Colt made them equal. :)

Wethal on June 28, 2010 at 12:50 PM

No, I think blame for that goes to Russell Earl Marker. Look him up.

Holger on June 28, 2010 at 12:52 PM

ConservativePartyNow on June 28, 2010 at 12:46 PM

I hope you are right though O’Connor and Souter serve as sad examples of how vanity, time and / or laziness can change those once believed worthy of being entrusted to uphold the Constitution.

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 12:54 PM

The difference between Liberty and Tyranny is one Supreme Court Judge.
It’s frightening, really.
Schadenfreude on June 28, 2010 at 12:45 PM

Yes, it is.

It isn’t very ironic that the Tyranny side of the equation is championed by those that go by a label that has the word ‘Liberty’ incorporated into it?

Sort of like how Communism was the ‘Red’ menace and now that color is being applied to the conservative side of the political spectrum.

Chip on June 28, 2010 at 12:58 PM

ted c on June 28, 2010 at 12:50 PM

Thank you, sir.

*******

I usually quote the Preamble first thing whenever I’m debating the abortion issue. It’s sometimes quite unnerving to the Leftists suddenly aware of how any honest argument for abortion falls once I ask them “how do I know you’ve actually read the book (Constitution) when you’ve obviously skipped the introduction (Preamble) ? ” Unfortunately, most Leftist remain consistently more interested in ideology than Liberty hence their typical “privacy” red herring as though a murder indoors is somehow better than murder outdoors.

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 1:08 PM

Both of you need to read this.

MadisonConservative on June 28, 2010 at 11:35 AM

That is a seriously disappointing announcement.

Hmmmmmm! Thanks. I will have to consider this carefully. The NRA is a one issue group but it doesn’t seem they are considering the consequences of inaction on other issues.

Vince on June 28, 2010 at 1:09 PM

Rush Limbaugh opened his show with this, and the news is even better than Ed describes it. The conservative court could have made the argument for the 2nd amendment in a hundred different ways, but they chose to frame it in terms of the plight of newly-freed slaves after the Civil War. In that period, the Democrats were trying to disarm blacks, and a number of legislators and judges argued and demonstrated that without the right to defend themselves, they could not be truly free.

Not only does this argument explain why gun ownership is an inseparable part of freedom, it puts the dissenting justices on the side of the KKK. As Rush put it, won’t it be great when Obama comes out and denounces the ruling (as he inevitably will, because of course he’s not going to read the decision before commenting on it). How will Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton respond to the issue?

joe_doufu on June 28, 2010 at 1:26 PM

That’s what they said about Roe v. Wade.

fossten on June 28, 2010 at 11:45 AM

It was a 5-4 decision that everybody said would be overturned as soon as the court swung 5-4 the other way. Didn’t happen. But that’s what you were whining about.

fossten on June 28, 2010 at 12:04 PM

–Roe v Wade was a 7-2 decision.

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 1:27 PM

usually quote the Preamble first thing whenever I’m debating the abortion issue. It’s sometimes quite unnerving to the Leftists suddenly aware of how any honest argument for abortion falls once I ask them “how do I know you’ve actually read the book (Constitution) when you’ve obviously skipped the introduction (Preamble) ? ” Unfortunately, most Leftist remain consistently more interested in ideology than Liberty hence their typical “privacy” red herring as though a murder indoors is somehow better than murder outdoors.

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 1:08 PM

Here’s the preamble: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

How does the “secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” (e.g. descendents) mean that abortion shold be outlawed?

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 1:29 PM

–Roe v Wade was a 7-2 decision.

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 1:27 PM

I could very easily use Texas vs. Johnson as another example.

fossten on June 28, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 1:29 PM

If you kill it it has ceased to be your posterity and has thus been denied the Liberty you’ve secured for it.

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 1:37 PM

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Liberals mostly misinterpret what “general welfare” means and definitely don’t respect the constitution – they make the laws they need, then lobby to pass them; conservatives sometimes misinterpret “secure the blessings of liberty”, unless it applies to their pet peeve of the moment.

Now, all get back to the thread topic – guns…yeahhhh, what a great day this is!!!

Schadenfreude on June 28, 2010 at 1:38 PM

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 1:29 PM
If you kill it it has ceased to be your posterity and has thus been denied the Liberty you’ve secured for it.

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 1:37 PM

–Then you must also think the Constitution prohibits the use of any birth control, right? And the language is ..”to secure the blessings of liberty

to ourselves

and our posterity” (not just your posterity).

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 1:40 PM

The Trinity of Colt, Winchester and Browning smile upon us this day.

A Canadian frame Para-Ord 14.45 followed me home a few days ago, I swear it was an accident! Care and feeding now commence…

ajacksonian on June 28, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Then you must also think the Constitution prohibits the use of any birth control, right?
Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Birth Control is designed to do several things. Prevent Ovulation, prevent fertilization and prevent implantation. It does not abort unless you believe a fetus starts at conception and thus prevention of implantation is de facto abortion.

Nice Try though.

Holger on June 28, 2010 at 1:44 PM

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Any birth control? Put down that crackpipe and that broad brush, sonny!

Remember when you assume…..
Go play outside.

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 1:44 PM

How does the “secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” (e.g. descendents) mean that abortion shold be outlawed?

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Where does it say that it’s a federal issue?

lorien1973 on June 28, 2010 at 1:44 PM

–Then you must also think the Constitution prohibits the use of any birth control, right? And the language is ..”to secure the blessings of liberty

to ourselves
and our posterity” (not just your posterity).

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Only if you view abortion on demand as a form of birth control. Otherwise, no. Not conceiving is not the same as killing an already existing life.

Nice try at a straw man, but as usual, your own lack of principle forces you to try to find hypocrisy in others and thus flash and distract from the issue.

fossten on June 28, 2010 at 1:46 PM

ConservativePartyNow writes

you know, I don’t want to sound like someone who follows conspiracy theories, but obama will still not get a majority court unless something happens with one of the conservatives on the bench.

Don’t forget that Obama and his minions hail from Chicago. Something could indeed ‘happen’ to one or more of the conservative justices.

Henry Bowman on June 28, 2010 at 1:49 PM

YES!!!!!!

Now lets hope Obama doesn’t get all wee-weed up and publicly admonish the justices while giving the state of the union…again.

canditaylor68 on June 28, 2010 at 1:59 PM

Viking, let me restate my argument. You think that abortion should be outlawed because abortion deprives your posterity of liberty because it prevents them from being born. My argument is that the same language also then deprives your posterity of liberty because it also prevents them from being born.

I don’t think the language is meant to do either one, by the way, because posterity means all future generations, not your direct offspring.

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 1:59 PM

You think that abortion should be outlawed because abortion deprives your posterity of liberty because it prevents them from being born. My argument is that the same language also then deprives your posterity of liberty because it also prevents them from being born.

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 1:59 PM

No. No. No.

Birth Control (such as Combined Oral Contraceptives and condoms) are designed to prevent the creation of posterity. Posterity does not exist when it is not created.

You are saying Lack of Life equals Life!

Holger on June 28, 2010 at 2:06 PM

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 1:59 PM

Arguing with you is pointless and tiresome. Here’s why:

Two people are sitting on a park bench. They decide not to mate. Or she hits you with her purse. At least one has practiced birth control yet hasn’t killed anyone. Provided you go away.

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 2:07 PM

Don’t forget that Obama and his minions hail from Chicago. Something could indeed ‘happen’ to one or more of the conservative justices.

Henry Bowman on June 28, 2010 at 1:49 PM

Or he could decree more than 9.

Schadenfreude on June 28, 2010 at 2:08 PM

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 2:07 PM

Under Jimbo’s logic, not putting out would be a violation of the Constitution.

Holger on June 28, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Henry Bowman on June 28, 2010 at 1:49 PM

You, sir, have my favorite screen name of all time.

fossten on June 28, 2010 at 2:12 PM

Viking, let me restate my argument. You think that abortion should be outlawed because abortion deprives your posterity of liberty because it prevents them from being born. My argument is that the same language also then deprives your posterity of liberty because it also prevents them from being born.

Wow. I’m literally startled by the stupidity of that argument.

Mike Honcho on June 28, 2010 at 2:13 PM

No. No. No.

Birth Control (such as Combined Oral Contraceptives and condoms) are designed to prevent the creation of posterity. Posterity does not exist when it is not created.

You are saying Lack of Life equals Life!

Holger on June 28, 2010 at 2:06 PM

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 1:59 PM
Arguing with you is pointless and tiresome. Here’s why:

Two people are sitting on a park bench. They decide not to mate. Or she hits you with her purse. At least one has practiced birth control yet hasn’t killed anyone. Provided you go away.

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 2:07 PM

–Viking, we’ll just have to disagree. Holger, I understand your point.

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 2:14 PM

Viking, let me restate my argument. You think that abortion should be outlawed because abortion deprives your posterity of liberty because it prevents them from being born. My argument is that the same language also then deprives your posterity of liberty because it also prevents them from being born.
Wow. I’m literally startled by the stupidity of that argument.

Mike Honcho on June 28, 2010 at 2:13 PM

Viking’s argument is that, because the preamble of the Consitution says it is designed to preserve liberty for ourselves and our descendants, then it must have intended to ban abortion. (He assumes that our descendants become entitled to co-equal rights immediately upon conception, apparently). I’m just explaining why that argument, to me, doesn’t make sense.

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 2:18 PM

–Viking, we’ll just have to disagree. Holger, I understand your point.

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 2:14 PM

That certainly wouldn’t change until I could take you seriously.

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 2:18 PM

From Steven’s dissent:

In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amend-ment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, “fundamental.” No broader constitutional interest or principle supports legal treatment of that right as fundamental. To the contrary, broader constitutional concerns of an institutional nature argue strongly against that treatment.

So when Jefferson wrote that we have an inalienable right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, there was no intent to allow us the means to defend those rights? Really?

And when the Bill of Rights was written everyone said yes to free speech, religion, private property etc., but defense of our lives and property should trusted to government?

Steven’s really believes that in the wake of the Revolutionary War, the framers would agree there is no fundamental right to self defense. Forget the legal mumbo jumbo. That notion is ridiculous on its face.

RadClown on June 28, 2010 at 2:20 PM

That certainly wouldn’t change until I could take you seriously.

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 2:18 PM

You’re not a lawyer, are you?

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 2:23 PM

–Then you must also think the Constitution prohibits the use of any birth control, right? And the language is ..”to secure the blessings of liberty

to ourselves

and our posterity” (not just your posterity).

Himbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Himbo, you couldn’t possibly be a lawyer or if you did get your J.D., the law faculty of U. of Michigan deeply regrets giving it to you…

The Constitution would not prohibit birth control (based on the “right to life”) because birth control prevents the possibility of there being a baby born or pregnancy, whereas it should prohibit abortion because it ends the actuality of the baby and amounts to nothing less than infanticide.
Most birth control prevents contraception where life begins.
With an abortion, contraception has already occurred and you’re talking about a human being being killed.

Jenfidel on June 28, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 2:18 PM

Bullshit. If it is human it is ourselves and therefore entitled to Constitutional protections applicable and secured to humans. It is not a ban on abortion it is a realization that abortion is homicide (literally same-kill) and should be treated thus. Therefore, approving abortion by the Supreme Court entails an overt disregard for the Preamble as worded.

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 2:25 PM

Rush Limbaugh opened his show with this, and the news is even better than Ed describes it. The conservative court could have made the argument for the 2nd amendment in a hundred different ways, but they chose to frame it in terms of the plight of newly-freed slaves after the Civil War. In that period, the Democrats were trying to disarm blacks, and a number of legislators and judges argued and demonstrated that without the right to defend themselves, they could not be truly free.

Not only does this argument explain why gun ownership is an inseparable part of freedom, it puts the dissenting justices on the side of the KKK. As Rush put it, won’t it be great when Obama comes out and denounces the ruling (as he inevitably will, because of course he’s not going to read the decision before commenting on it). How will Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton respond to the issue?

Does anybody know where I could access a good account of this? Its an excellent counter-argument to liberal gun control positions.

RAB on June 28, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Does anybody know where I could access a good account of this? Its an excellent counter-argument to liberal gun control positions.

RAB on June 28, 2010 at 2:26 PM

There’s always a transcript of his show after about 5:30 pm. Just go to rushlimbaugh.com.

fossten on June 28, 2010 at 2:42 PM

From Steven’s dissent:

In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amend-ment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, “fundamental.” No broader constitutional interest or principle supports legal treatment of that right as fundamental. To the contrary, broader constitutional concerns of an institutional nature argue strongly against that treatment.

So when Jefferson wrote that we have an inalienable right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness, there was no intent to allow us the means to defend those rights? Really?

And when the Bill of Rights was written everyone said yes to free speech, religion, private property etc., but defense of our lives and property should trusted to government?

Steven’s really believes that in the wake of the Revolutionary War, the framers would agree there is no fundamental right to self defense. Forget the legal mumbo jumbo. That notion is ridiculous on its face.

RadClown on June 28, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Stevens? He’s crr6′s great grandfather.

Del Dolemonte on June 28, 2010 at 2:43 PM

You’re not a lawyer, are you?

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Ad hominem=fail. crr6, is that you?

fossten on June 28, 2010 at 2:44 PM

“to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves
and our posterity”

Himbo, you couldn’t possibly be a lawyer or if you did get your J.D., the law faculty of U. of Michigan deeply regrets giving it to you…

The Constitution would not prohibit birth control (based on the “right to life”) because birth control prevents the possibility of there being a baby born or pregnancy, whereas it should prohibit abortion because it ends the actuality of the baby and amounts to nothing less than infanticide.
Most birth control prevents contraception where life begins.
With an abortion, contraception has already occurred and you’re talking about a human being being killed.

Jenfidel on June 28, 2010 at 2:24 PM

So, Jen, do you think that the language of the preamble of the US Constitution noted above makes abortion illegal (or was intended to do so)?

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Does anybody know where I could access a good account of this?

RAB on June 28, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Instapundit has links to a couple serious articles about this.

exception on June 28, 2010 at 2:46 PM

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 2:18 PM
Bullshit. If it is human it is ourselves and therefore entitled to Constitutional protections applicable and secured to humans. It is not a ban on abortion it is a realization that abortion is homicide (literally same-kill) and should be treated thus. Therefore, approving abortion by the Supreme Court entails an overt disregard for the Preamble as worded.

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 2:25 PM

So, what about this language in the 14th Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Wouldn’t that suggest that fetuses aren’t citizens?

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 2:48 PM

obama will still not get a majority court unless something happens with one of the conservatives on the bench

ConservativePartyNow on June 28, 2010 at 12:46 PM

Which is why we need to keep praying for the health and safety of the conservative justices (and Kennedy too).

If Obama gets just one more pick during his remaining first (and, undoubtedly, only) term as president, fully one-third of the SCOTUS will be Obama appointees. How sickening is that?

AZCoyote on June 28, 2010 at 2:51 PM

So, Jen, do you think that the language of the preamble of the US Constitution noted above makes abortion illegal (or was intended to do so)?

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 2:45 PM

It works for me, particularly in tandem with the clause from the Declaration of Independence (Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

The Constitution is supposed to protect the right to life–abortion puts the lie to that because right now the laws of this country do not protect the lives of the unborn since Roe v. Wade was passed and we’ve lost 40-60,000,000 citizens thereby.

Jenfidel on June 28, 2010 at 2:52 PM

You’re not a lawyer, are you?

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 2:23 PM
Ad hominem=fail. crr6, is that you?

fossten on June 28, 2010 at 2:44 PM

–I don’t think that’s an ad hominem argument. It’s like saying you may not be as qualified as I am to read and understand an engineering circuit diagram if you were an English major and I’ve been an electrical engineer for fifteen years. That’s not a character flaw.

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Wouldn’t that suggest that fetuses aren’t citizens?

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 2:48 PM

No.
(*again, shaking my head at your dearth of analytical thinking skills allegedly possessed in abundance by lawyers, but not by you*)

Babies can’t be born and grow up to be citizens if they’re murdered by abortion.
Duh.

Jenfidel on June 28, 2010 at 2:55 PM

It works for me, particularly in tandem with the clause from the Declaration of Independence (Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

The Constitution is supposed to protect the right to life–abortion puts the lie to that because right now the laws of this country do not protect the lives of the unborn since Roe v. Wade was passed and we’ve lost 40-60,000,000 citizens thereby.

Jenfidel on June 28, 2010 at 2:52 PM

–Then why hasn’t anyone been able to successfully make that argument to any court?

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 2:55 PM

Reposting from the long-gone headline thread:

I provided extensive documentation to crr6 that the founders intended, explicitly, for the Bill of Rights to apply to the states.*

Everything it has said on the subject since then is a lie.

This is THE history of the “gun control” debate – the “controllers” lie, are caught, and then lie again. This has NEVER changed and it NEVER will – because they wouldn’t be able to hold their position if they were honest.

* The courts tried to “disincorporate” the Bill of Rights after the 14th amendmendt, but this was also fundamentally dishonest and didn’t “stick”. Cruikshank & Presser in particular denied both 1st and 2nd amendment rights were protected from State interference, in defiance of the stated intent of the Founders and the 14th Amendment.

Merovign on June 28, 2010 at 2:57 PM

That’s not a character flaw.

Himbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Nor is not being a lawyer a character flaw!
In fact, it’s an absolute boon.

The Founders didn’t write the Founding documents like the Constitution with the requirement that all Americans had to attend a top flight law school before they were allowed to read it and understand it!

One of the biggest problems with our government today is that it’s chock full of (ambulance chasing, class action suit) lawyers who think and act in legalese.
Kinda like you, Himbo.

Jenfidel on June 28, 2010 at 2:58 PM

This squeaker of a decision at 5 to 4, demonstrates that we are one heartbeat from tyranny! And how important it is to get some more conservatives in office.

JeffVader on June 28, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Wouldn’t that suggest that fetuses aren’t citizens?

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 2:48 PM

Another horrendously weak red herring. To the Founders, having Classical education fetus= offspring posterity = offspring. Literally, figuratively, by connotation, by denotation.

You’re not a lawyer, are you? If you are I wouldn’t tell anyone.

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 2:59 PM

Justice Stevens is either bone-shatteringly ignorant, or is deliberately lying about the intent of the Founders. They stated explicitly and repeatedly that the 2nd applied to individual citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.

I’m sick of the God Damned lies and I hope Stevens’ replacement is at least honest about their decisions and vaguely informed on the subjects.

So sick of the lies.

Merovign on June 28, 2010 at 3:01 PM

One of the biggest problems with our government today is that it’s chock full of (ambulance chasing, class action suit) lawyers who think and act in legalese.
Kinda like you, Himbo.

Jenfidel on June 28, 2010 at 2:58 PM
….
You’re not a lawyer, are you? If you are I wouldn’t tell anyone.

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 2:59 PM

–How about everyone stops with the personal insults. Jen, I’ve told you I’m a corporate lawyer, not a litigator. And, Jen, it looked like you almost got banned on Friday night.

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 3:03 PM

–Then why hasn’t anyone been able to successfully make that argument to any court?

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 2:55 PM

Because no-one’s brought the right case to SCOTUS and the heavens haven’t opened yet.
Or perhaps it will take a new Amendment to overturn Roe as was the case with the Dred Scott decision.

Roe is bad law and evil law and is a decision that should never have been rendered.
In addition, it abrogates the Constitutional rights of the 50 states to make their own decisions as to the legality of abortion.

Jenfidel on June 28, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Jen, I’ve told you I’m a corporate lawyer, not a litigator.

It doesn’t matter what you chose for your career: in law school you study both corporate law and litigation as well as all other kinds of law in an attempt to present your mind with a host of legal issues and to developing your analytical thinking skills.
Theoretically.

And, Jen, it looked like you almost got banned on Friday night.

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Maybe, but I think it was really ernesto that was working AP’s last nerve.

Jenfidel on June 28, 2010 at 3:06 PM

The sad part of this,is that it was ever questioned at all.The 2nd amendment is perfectly clear in its meaning and intent.

badpenny on June 28, 2010 at 3:06 PM

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 3:03 PM

What a crock. If my quoting your pompous bleating makes you realize you are in over your head don’t blame anyone on this forum beside yourself. And speaking of beside yourself….

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 3:10 PM

BORK Kagen!!!!!!!!!

Col.John Wm. Reed on June 28, 2010 at 3:17 PM

The 2nd amendment is perfectly clear in its meaning and intent.

badpenny on June 28, 2010 at 3:06 PM

Particularly when it contains language like this:

“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.”

One wonders how Chicago and D.C. got away with their gun bans in the first place!

Jenfidel on June 28, 2010 at 3:18 PM

Because no-one’s brought the right case to SCOTUS and the heavens haven’t opened yet.
Or perhaps it will take a new Amendment to overturn Roe as was the case with the Dred Scott decision.

Roe is bad law and evil law and is a decision that should never have been rendered.
In addition, it abrogates the Constitutional rights of the 50 states to make their own decisions as to the legality of abortion.

Jenfidel on June 28, 2010 at 3:03 PM

–Overturning Roe is different than saying the Consitution prohibits abortion as Viking is arguing.

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 3:18 PM

Successful troll is successful.

exception on June 28, 2010 at 3:22 PM

“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.”
One wonders how Chicago and D.C. got away with their gun bans in the first place!

Jenfidel on June 28, 2010 at 3:18 PM

Maybe because of the “well regulated militia” language. Most legal Constitutional scholars didn’t think the Second Amendment confered an individual right to possess guns for quite a while.

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 3:23 PM

–Overturning Roe is different than saying the Consitution prohibits abortion as Viking is arguing.

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 3:18 PM

Just can’t let it go, can you?

Roe could and should be overturned for lots of reasons:
1. It’s bad law: there’s no “right to privacy” and even if there were, that doesn’t mean the right to privacy also bestows the “right” to have an abortion.
2. It abrogates the rights of the several states, which the Constitution forbids.
3. It sanctions murder of the unborn, which should be a crime.
4. It’s been heavily abused: Did the Roe court envision the practice of 2nd & 3rd trimester abortions, as well as partial birth abortions? I think not.
Roe could and should be overturned and the decision sent back to the states, where it always belonged.

Jenfidel on June 28, 2010 at 3:24 PM

–Overturning Roe is different than saying the Consitution prohibits abortion as Viking is arguing.

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 3:18 PM

If anything it would prevent at a minimum a regulatory scheme where people with hereditary diseases would be barred from reproducing.

Holger on June 28, 2010 at 3:25 PM

Maybe because of the “well regulated militia” language. Most legal Constitutional scholars didn’t think the Second Amendment confered an individual right to possess guns for quite a while.

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Oh, please!
I know you sad no personal attacks, but you are unbelievably dense for someone who constantly claims they’re an attorney!

It has been common knowledge that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right since Madison et al wrote the Constitution!
No one can form a militia if individuals don’t have their own guns.

Jenfidel on June 28, 2010 at 3:26 PM

Just can’t let it go, can you?

Roe could and should be overturned for lots of reasons:
1. It’s bad law: there’s no “right to privacy” and even if there were, that doesn’t mean the right to privacy also bestows the “right” to have an abortion.
2. It abrogates the rights of the several states, which the Constitution forbids.
3. It sanctions murder of the unborn, which should be a crime.
4. It’s been heavily abused: Did the Roe court envision the practice of 2nd & 3rd trimester abortions, as well as partial birth abortions? I think not.
Roe could and should be overturned and the decision sent back to the states, where it always belonged.

Jenfidel on June 28, 2010 at 3:24 PM

–Aah, then you agree with me. For it to go back to the states, the Consitution can’t ban abortion.

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Did the Roe court envision the practice of 2nd & 3rd trimester abortions, as well as partial birth abortions? I think not.
Roe could and should be overturned and the decision sent back to the states, where it always belonged.

Jenfidel on June 28, 2010 at 3:24 PM

The decision put viability as the cut off point regarding legality, and viability starts around the 5-6th month. It did not give protection to partial birth abortion in the 8th month.

Holger on June 28, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Maybe because of the “well regulated militia” language. Most legal Constitutional scholars didn’t think the Second Amendment confered an individual right to possess guns for quite a while.

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 3:23 PM

The original intent of the 2nd was to protect the Individual’s Right to Own Arms. You can tell early on because they went further and required free-able bodied white males to own a musket or rifle under the Militia Acts of 1792 (not to be placed in some armory but to be in their possession).

Holger on June 28, 2010 at 3:29 PM

–Aah, then you agree with me. For it to go back to the states, the Consitution can’t ban abortion.

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 3:27 PM

It should be banned, but it shouldn’t take a federal usurpation of state powers to do it, although it might come to that.
However we can end this holocaust, I’m for it.

Jenfidel on June 28, 2010 at 3:29 PM

What is particularly egregious is Jimbo03′s (2:48 PM) warped understanding of the 14th Amendment Section I intends. An amendment which served to give the former slaves citizens rights of their nation and their state of residence, rights of due process in their state and to prevent state laws from abridging or denying their rights as US citizens. Jimbo03′s emphasis of “born” in the skewed context he chose illustrates his complete oblivion in regards to whose rights the authors of the 14th Amendment are speaking.

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 3:47 PM

And speaking of due process shouldn’t our offspring deserve and enjoy same? Also, much of Roe hinges on “privacy” as justification which is a “right” that simply doesn’t seem to find its way into the copy of the Constitution I have.

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 3:56 PM

Most birth control prevents contraception where life begins.
With an abortion, contraception has already occurred and you’re talking about a human being being killed.

Jenfidel on June 28, 2010 at 2:24 PM

No, sad to say most contraception is abortifacient in it’s mechanism. That would include pills, patches, shots, (which have lowered their hormone levels considerably over the past twenty years in order to avoid messy lawsuits over side affects like stroke, blood clots, heart attack, death, etc.) Because of these much lower hormone levels, “breakout” ovulation and conception can and does regularly occur, but the uterine lining is decimated by these contraceptives, thus when the new life makes his or her way down the tube to implant (about 3 days after conception), he or she will find a desolate environment and will die there shortly.

The IUD also makes the uterine lining inhospitable to the new person who when conceived in the fallopian tube, also finds a deadly environment waiting when he or she arrives in the womb.

There is also a much bigger question to be answered re: contraception, which is why man has become so selfish and physically inverted that pre-marital sex has become the norm and has both been driven by artificial contraception while at the same time “necessitating” it to feed a destructive moral choice. Ironically, the pill was first introduced to married couples, resulting in our present age in stunted families whose spouses have lost the mystical nature of total self giving and generosity to the point of refusal to welcome the blessings of their own children. It is true that much of this mindest has been drummed into us through the media/education/economic juggarnaut. Couples contracept when the money is tight. But, there is something greater than human realities that should stop couples from blocking Almighty God’s creation and that is trust that the children he creates in a marriage, he will also take care of. Doesn’t the Lord tell us in Scripture that He will provide, and that if we seek first the Kingdom of God, everything else we need will be given us? Contraception is a denial of His Kingdom, it is not letting the little Children come to him. Many couples who contracept find they still don’t get ahead financially and are also not as close as they would like to be. There is a small but growing number of couples who, as in the days before the pill, welcome children, work as hard as they can and trust the Lord to provide. And He does.

Legalized abortion is the result of legalized contraception, (which has only had “legal sanction” in the U.S. since about 1968. Abortion has followed contraception in every nation in the world in the twentieth century. Both are a degradation of the God-like human capacity for generosity and unconditional sacrifice and love. Abortion and contraception make us “smaller”, strip us of our awesome powers of co-generation with Almighty God and strip the nobility and dignity of our true natures.

To read in depth, and gain true understanding, please read Humanae Vitae, a short encyclical by Pope Paul VI and start working your way through the lessons of the much larger work of Pope John Paul II called Theology of the Body.

P.S. A shout out to you, Jenfidel. You schooled Esthier in another post the other day – couldn’t post about it at the time I saw it because the thread was closed out.

P.P.S. Jimbo3 – Saw you here earlier. I must pre-emptively tell you that although you may (or may not) reply to this post, I don’t think I’ll reply to you. You are predictable and tiresome in your love for abortion and contraception and it is really kind of creepy. BTW, your argument that “posterity” doesn’t include one’s immediate offspring is it’s own “Jimboism of the Day”.

tigerlily on June 28, 2010 at 4:00 PM

Jen–FYI:

Fifth, and personally, I’d like to note that a lot of “respectable” commentators were, just a few years ago, calling the individual-rights theory of the Second Amendment absurd, ridiculous, and something that only (probably paid) shills for the NRA would espouse. (I’m talking to you, Garry Wills and Robert Spitzer, among others). Yet it is impossible to read this opinion, and the Heller opinion, and conclude that the individual right is really just a “fraud” concocted by the NRA. So were those who were saying so until quite recently being dishonest, or merely inexcusably ignorant?

UPDATE: On the other hand, I should note what Bob Cottrol said to me at the NRA convention after Heller: “We owe this to the open-mindedness of liberal law professors.” That includes people like Larry Tribe, and Sandy Levinson, whose 1992 Yale Law Journal essay, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, really kicked things off by signaling to the legal academy that it was okay to write about this. Also William Van Alstyne, for his essay The Second Amendment And The Personal Right to Arms.

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 4:02 PM

The hilarity of SDP, is that it was first introduced in Dred Scott, in favor of Emerson/Sanford on the fifth amendment grounds that emerson/sanford was a citizen and Scott was chattel. And if one reads Scott v Sandford [sic], Amendement 14, section 1 reads like a simple repudiation of that decision.

Fighton03 on June 28, 2010 at 4:07 PM

WOO-HOO! GUNS FOR EVERYBODY!!!!!!!!

*shoots into the air with AK-47*

ThePrez on June 28, 2010 at 4:11 PM

Also, much of Roe hinges on “privacy” as justification which is a “right” that simply doesn’t seem to find its way into the copy of the Constitution I have.

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 3:56 PM

Ugh. 9th Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Holger on June 28, 2010 at 4:12 PM

To get a carry permit in Delaware you have to:

1. Get five residents to sign a form saying you’re not nuts, and

2. Take a $350 gun safety course, and

3. Put an ad in the newspaper saying you’re applying for a carry permit.

The last requirement often leads to a burglary and the theft of your guns.

“All they took was my guns, officer.”
“Were you applying for a carry permit?”
“Well… yeah.”
“The theif probably saw your ad.”

The first requirement makes you ask permission from your neighbors to excercize your right. Maybe newspaper reporters should get my permission before publishing.

Akzed on June 28, 2010 at 4:15 PM

The decision put viability as the cut off point regarding legality, and viability starts around the 5-6th month. It did not give protection to partial birth abortion in the 8th month.

Holger on June 28, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Roe v Wade has a companion decision known as Doe v Bolton.
Doe v Bolton provides that abortion shall not be restricted for any reason if a doctor (that includes an abortionist) attests that there is a medical reason for the abortion.
“Medical reason” is a legal term of art which encompasses reasons which may be physical, emotional, psychological, or social. The term is intentionally designed to be so broad that you could drive a truck through it, or in this case, take an unborn life anytime during pregnancy.

Thus, in the United States of America, since 1973, abortions may be perfomed up to the day of birth. There is no Supreme Court decision that has overturned either Roe or Doe which provide for this.

This is the reason that abortionists like George Tiller could and can ply their grisly trade. Tiller routinely aborted children in the seventh, eighth and even the ninth month.

As for partial birth abortion. Horrifying as it is, there is a much more commonly perpetrated, yet equally hideous abortion procedure used in the fourth to sixth months of pregnancy. It is called Dilation and Extraction, or D&X. The abortionist goes after the baby with a sharp pincer-like instrument, literally tearing the living baby limb from limb and removing him or her in pieces.

And we wonder how we got obama as president.

tigerlily on June 28, 2010 at 4:18 PM

Ugh. 9th Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Holger on June 28, 2010 at 4:12 PM”

Yet if all “the people” shall retain those unenumerated rights equally then shall one individual have those rights in excess of another? Thus the argument that one person has a right denied to another falls back upon whether their Liberty and Liberty of all has truly been secured.

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 4:20 PM

For all the grief I heap on GWB, I’ve got to, once again, congratulate him on the appointment of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to SCOTUS.

Freedom takes another step forward.

JohnGalt23 on June 28, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Pardon the lack of quote end break in my 4:20 PM post.

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 4:23 PM

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 4:20 PM

I was pointing out a right doesn’t have to be explicitly enumerated in the Constitution for it to exist.

If it was the case a right has to be explicitly enumerated, than the Federal Government could get away with a lot of victimization such as Right of the First Night.

Holger on June 28, 2010 at 4:37 PM

Holger on June 28, 2010 at 4:37 PM

Agreed. I was mostly re-iterating that expressed by the last sentence of my 1:08 PM post.

viking01 on June 28, 2010 at 4:42 PM

Who else here wishes that the Supremes hadn’t left it to the lower regional courts to carry out the legalities of putting their decision into action? We are talking about Chicago, here. They will not enforce this decision, because their local Federal judges will sit on it.

It will be similar to what happened in NOW v Scheidler, the historic pro-life case in which NOW accused Scheidler of RICO activity because he organized pro-life protests (legal First Amendment non-violent protests) with other pro-life organizations across the country. NOW called it a conspiracy and threw in false witness testimony about minor incidents of violence that either didn’t occur when Scheidler was present and were perpetrated by agent provacatuers, simply fabricated and testified to by pro-abort stooges the NOW put up for the courts.

The case took almost twenty years to litigate and went to the Supreme Court three times. The Supremes final ruling exonerated Scheidler of all RICO charges and liability. But, they did not themselves vacate the lower court rulings against Scheidler. The Supremes, as it seems has happened in this right to bear arms ruling, simply ruled and expected the lower courts to do the “paperwork”.

In Scheidler’s case it was not done. The lower Federal court said and did nothing. They did not reply to Scheidler’s attorneys; they simply refused to comply with the Supreme’s decision. The lower court was headed up by a judge who was an active Planned Parenthood advocate.

Scheidler had to go back to the Supreme Court in order to get a ruling to make the lower Federal court vacate all findings against him. This took about two more years from the Supreme’s decision. And all that time NOW was holding the title to his home, which he had to put up in order to show he had the means to pay for his appeal the first time around.

This all happened just a few years ago in Chicago. If obama gets involved, then the anti-gun laws in Chicago may never be revised and overturned where need be.

With the Left, it’s never over, and acting outside the law, or more to the point, illegally, is as natural to them as breathing. Or lying. Who’s going to stop them? They are the law.

tigerlily on June 28, 2010 at 4:43 PM

From Sam Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772 (with much formatting dropped), he has just talked about the Restoration after Cromwell:

At the revolution, the British constitution was again restor’d to its original principles, declared in the bill of rights; which was afterwards pass’d into a law, and stands as a bulwark to the natural rights of subjects. “To vindicate these rights, says Mr. Blackstone, when actually violated or attack’d, the subjects of England are entitled first to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law—next to the right of petitioning the King and parliament for redress of grievances-and lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.” These he calls “auxiliary subordinate rights, which serve principally as barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights of personal security, personal liberty and private property”: And that of having arms for their defence he tells us is “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.”-How little do those persons attend to the rights of the constitution, if they know anything about them, who find fault with a late vote of this town, calling upon the inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defence at any time; but more especially, when they had reason to fear, there would be a necessity of the means of self preservation against the violence of oppression.-Every one knows that the exercise of the military power is forever dangerous to civil rights; and we have had recent instances of violences that have been offer’d to private subjects, and the last week, even to a magistrate in the execution of his office!- Such violences are no more than might have been expected from military troops: A power, which is apt enough at all times to take a wanton lead, even when in the midst of civil society; but more especially so, when they are led to believe that they are become necessary, to awe a spirit of rebellion, and preserve peace and good order. But there are some persons, who would, if possibly they could, perswade the people never to make use of their constitutional rights or terrify them from doing it. No wonder that a resolution of this town to keep arms for its own defence, should be represented as having at bottom a secret intention to oppose the landing of the King’s troops: when those very persons, who gave it this colouring, had before represented the people petitioning their Sovereign, as proceeding from a factious and rebellious spirit; and would now insinuate that there is an impropriety in their addressing even a plantation Governor upon public business-Such are the times we are fallen into!

ajacksonian on June 28, 2010 at 4:46 PM

Viking–FYI:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/105610.php

When asked about abortion and other topics during an interview with Lesley Stahl on CBS’ “60 Minutes” Sunday, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia confessed “to being a social conservative” but said it “does not affect [his] views on cases,” USA Today reports (USA Today, 4/25). “On the abortion thing, for example, if indeed I were … trying to impose my own views, I would not only be opposed to Roe v. Wade, I would be in favor of the opposite view, which the antiabortion people would like to see adopted, which is to interpret the Constitution to mean that a state must prohibit abortion,” Scalia said. When Stahl asked, “And you’re against that?” Scalia replied, “Of course,” adding that there is “nothing” in the Constitution to support that view (AP/Google.com, 4/24).

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 4:52 PM

So, what about this language in the 14th Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Wouldn’t that suggest that fetuses aren’t citizens?

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 2:48 PM

So killing illegal aliens is legal?

Slowburn on June 28, 2010 at 5:01 PM

So, what about this language in the 14th Amendment: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Wouldn’t that suggest that fetuses aren’t citizens?

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 2:48 PM
So killing illegal aliens is legal?

Slowburn on June 28, 2010 at 5:01 PM

–No, but at the same time they’re not citizens, right?

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 5:11 PM

When Stahl asked, “And you’re against that?” Scalia replied, “Of course,” adding that there is “nothing” in the Constitution to support that view (AP/Google.com, 4/24).

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 4:52 PM

It’s true, there’s nothing in the Constitution against abortion. But there’s also nothing in the Constitution against murder. Every state, of course, makes murder illegal.

The inhumanity of Roe v. Wade is that the SCOTUS ruled that States may not prosecute or punish these particular murders because… uh… just because. This decision is also obviously illegal under the first section of the 14th amendment: “equal protection of the laws”. In Roe v. Wade, the majority ruled that an entire class not only can, but must, be denied the protection of state law against murder.

joe_doufu on June 28, 2010 at 5:11 PM

–No, but at the same time they’re not citizens, right?

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 5:11 PM

I’ve heard that one a lot from college libertarians. (I may have used it myself back when I was one.) The other one they like to try is, “the unborn don’t pay taxes, do they?”.

So what if they’re not citizens?

joe_doufu on June 28, 2010 at 5:13 PM

I’ve been an electrical engineer for fifteen years. That’s not a character flaw.

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Actually, being an engineer (any kind) is a character flaw.

I’ve been told so countless times by spouses of engineers.

Del Dolemonte on June 28, 2010 at 5:14 PM

I’ve been an electrical engineer for fifteen years. That’s not a character flaw.

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 2:54 PM
Actually, being an engineer (any kind) is a character flaw.

I’ve been told so countless times by spouses of engineers.

Del Dolemonte on June 28, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Not a character flaw, just a social skills flaw (at least from the spouses of engineers I’ve talked to). But lawyers, actuaries and accountants generally also have the same flaw.

Jimbo3 on June 28, 2010 at 5:16 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4