Cite to that rule, please?
Wow. I should have quoted your whole post, because the irony of your jab that Scalia was making things up, followed instantly by your statement that the Supreme Court is theoretically limited to considering the merits of arguments presented by the parties, is too funny for words.
In fact, the court not only can rely upon a thoery not advanced by the parties, but it MUST, if that is the correct resolution of the issue:
Where the hell did you get the idea that a reviewing court could only consider arguments of the parties?
It follows logically from the prohibition on advisory opinions and requirement for an actual controversy; the court can only consider the issues before it. As far as I can tell, Helvering applies where the reasoning the lower court relied on is wrong, and not necessarily where the correct reasoning was not before the court at all.
Anyway, Scalia didn’t just rely on an argument that wasn’t before him; in a sense, he granted relief that had not been requested.
Your confusion seems to be between “issues” and “arguments.”
Correct that the court can only consider issues raised below.
Incorrect that the court can only consider arguments raised below.
Don’t start digging yourself a bigger hole.
No, he didn’t. What relief did he grant that wasn’t requested by one of the parties?
Gotta nit-pick.
There are some exceptions to the general rule that the court can only consider issues raised below.
For instance, a challenge to the lower court’s jurisdiction can be raised at any time, including on appeal.
Here’s what Heller asked for (plus declaratory relief consistent with the injunction) in his complaint:
There’s nothing in there about self defense. And yet Scalia finds that the Second Amendment protects a right to self defense.
It stands to reason that if relief is granted based on a new argument, on remand the losing party is entitled to present new evidence to address the new argument. Indeed, Helvering includes that very proposition:
The second amendment and the right to self-defense is the reason Heller was entitled to the requested relief. The requested relief was an injunction against the ban on handguns.
By the way, that’s a “Constitutional Originalist” interpretation, or belief, as in religious belief.
As I’ve pointed out in some detail, Heller did not point to his right to self defense as a reason for his entitlement to relief. He pointed to the language of the Second Amendment, and that was all. Read his briefs. They go on and on for pages about the rather comical notion that the first clause of the second amendment is a “preamble”, and that’s about it.
Uh, the constitution doesn’t grant rights. It secures them. The right to self-defense is self-evident.
You don’t seem able to distinguish that Heller’s issue was over whether or not he can keep his gun despite the ban.
The court is free to look at other reasons, and as Bricker pointed out, has to look at other reasons if the reasons given are wrong.
Self-defense is the argument, not the issue. A party does not have to raise all possible arguments. Very often the court does not agree with either sides argument completely, yet it still decides one way or the other.
No, self defense is the issue. There is nothing inherently tying guns to self defense; one can have the right to keep weapons, a right to self-defense, neither, or both.
[QUOTE=emarkp]
Uh, the constitution doesn’t grant rights. It secures them. The right to self-defense is self-evident.
[/QUOTE]
Your first sentence is a polite fiction, and your third doesn’t make sense, but in any event I’m not sure who you are addressing here.
self-defense is YOUR issue in Heller. Heller claimed that the ban on handguns violated his right to a weapon. THAT was the issue in Heller.
In addressing the issue, Scalia reasoned that Heller has a right to his gun because he has a right to self defense.
I accept your concession.
Whatever.