This attitude is interesting. I’ve noticed that it seems the general consensus has been, not just on this board, but in general, that Scalia writing the decision means that the outcome is already determined.
But all the Scalia defenders say over and over that Scalia is not results-driven and does not let ideology get in the way of his decisions. Interesting, then, that everyone assumes Scalia’s vote in this case is a foregone conclusion, isn’t it?
Scalia has a judicial philosophy that lends itself to a particular outcome in this case. Based upon his previous opinions (22 years worth) we can make an educated guess as to the result.
In addition, if you listened to the orals, he all but called bullshit on DC’s arguments. It would be a total reversal of his stance on the matter if his opinion didn’t do so as well.
Also, it’s funny that you are assuming that Scalia would “let ideology get in the way of his decision” in this case, as if he would be making the wrong decision if it went a certain way. That’s an odd sort of skepticism.
Yes, and rabble-rousing propagandists are more effective with radio, television, and the Internet than they were with pamphlets cranked out on manual presses. Your point?
Tell me about it.
In this case, Scalia’s personal ideology and Constitutional principles are in alignment. That the decision will be in favor of individual gun ownership is about as foregone as any future event can be.
The scenario I’m concerned about is the possibility that Scalia will go Taney and take his decison into uncharted territory. He’ll figure that the Second Amendment wins the case for him but he’ll use it as a starting position to go off on some tangent on other issues. Maybe declare that the Second Amendment protects gun rights and in order to protect that right he’s disbanding Congress and declaring Bush President-for-Life.
No luck today on the decision. We’ll see about tomorrow.
EDIT: Scalia wrote one opinion for today’s releases. How this will play out for Heller remains to be seen.
The decision will definitely be tomorrow. What a surprise, waiting until the last minute. :rolleyes:
Not exactly. It’s for lower courts, and other branches of government, to obey their decisions.
I think it’s certain that the SCOTUS will rule in favor of gun ownership.
I can’t help but wonder what this will mean to the NRA and gun owners, though. For the vast majority of gun owners, nothing changes. The NRA at the same time achieves their biggest goal but loses their biggest talking point and fund raising mechanism. It would be like the Religious Right achieving an oveturning of Roe v. Wade - they win, but what is going to get the voters to the polls in the next election?
What will the single issue voters base their votes on now?
Obviously some very smart people disagree about what the Constitutional principles are, or this case would not have gotten to the Supreme Court.
This is a silly comparison. You can’t use a knife from long range. It’s not as easy, it can’t kill in anything like the same numbers, it’s not as impersonal and it doesn’t cause collateral damage. Nobody ever stabbed up a school. No one ever got hit by a stray knife. There aren’t any drive-by stabbings.
It’s the people who live in urban areas saturated with gun crimes who are the most pro-gun control. Carrying a gun around isn’t going to stop your kid from getting shot on the bus or catching a stray bullet through the window at home (both examples of incidents which have happened recently here in the TC).
First, I’m not talking about gun owners, but gun nuts. Secondly, I wouldn’t do it if they weren’t constantly doing it first.
That doesn’t gel with my experiences. From what I have seen, it tends to be those in suburban areas who are most pro gun control, while the people I have known who lived in the high crime areas of the city were more pro self-defense rights.
If there are surveys done to back up your assertion, though, I would be open to persuasion.
Interesting question: how constitutional are laws restricting access to explosives? It would be anomalous to say the least if a state could ban fireworks within it’s borders but had to allow it’s citizens to possess grenades and anti-tank rockets. Seriously, virtually all modern heavy military ordinance relies on explosives, either as the warhead or because they require a charge of propellant large enough to be considered an explosive in it’s own right.
Bear in mind that in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, private citizens could and did own cannon. Most didn’t because of their expense, unwieldiness, and general lack of utility outside a battlefield setting, but in principle they could.
We’ll have to see what the letter of the ruling is; my guess is that the SC will uphold something like a “shall issue” principle at the constitutional level: states and local governments can reasonably regulate firearms, but not to the point of effectively banning them from the law-abiding.
If the court holds that there’s an individual right to bear arms, I expect that there will be years of follow-up cases which sort out the boundaries of that right, and, conversely, the extent to which the government can regulate guns. In 15 or 20 years, however, I agree that the NRA could suffer from a “catastrophic victory” problem.
I don’t think that’s unusual for high-profile decisions. The justices know they’re writing for a much larger audience than usual, and they (apparently) spend more time tinkering with their opinions.
Maybe they (SC) saw the shoot-up in the news and thought it would be bad timing to affirm a right to bear arms. Wackos with guns make people sit up and take notice.
I’ll presume to understand Little Nemo’s statement (please correct me if I’m wrong) with a slight rephrase (bolding added):
In this case, Scalia’s personal ideology and Scalia’s Constitutional principles are in alignment.
Agreed, and I’ve said as much several times here to that effect.
What torques me off is that they likely knew what their decisions were going to be long ago, and I seriously doubt that the Justices and their clerks are going to stay up and burn the midnight oil over this decision tonight, they surely had it written a while ago.
I believe that the reason they sit on big decisions until the end is so that they can get the hell out of Dodge ASAP and avoid the immediate fallout. Because there will be fallout over this, no matter how it’s decided. Forgive me if my impressions are wrong, but it seems to be more than a bit cowardly. Get it out already. There’s no reason to make everybody wait.
Is that so? Where, exactly, did I start talking trash in this thread? The OP?
No, it was you, starting with Post #9. Who started what, again? Give me a break. You see a thread about guns and no matter what has been said to that point you take the low road. Every time.